Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3072
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, J
Akshay Kumar Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Bharat Electronics Ltd. – Respondent
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/104217 | CIC/BELBL/C/2023/111699
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: None
The right to information includes the right to inspect records, but requests must be specific to avoid resource diversion; broad demands may be rejected.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(j), 4(1), and 7(9) - Appeal against dismissal of RTI application seeking information related to installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras - The Appellant claimed violation of the Act for non-disclosure of public information. The Respondent contended the request was voluminous and deviated resources despite providing access to inspect records. The Commission noted that the right to information includes the right to inspect documents, and observed that the Appellant was advised to specify the information required to make it manageable. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of non-specificity and the nature of requested information. (Paras 5, 8, 9, and 10)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application on 04.11.2022 seeking extensive information related to CCTV installation by Bharat Electronics Limited under a contract with PWD, along with details of funding and request flow. The CPIO responded indicating the request was too broad, and the FAA upheld this response.
Findings of Court:
The appellant was informed that the information sought might disproportionately divert public resources but was advised to inspect available records.
Issues: The main issues involved the scope of the right to inspect records and whether the information sought was indeed voluminous enough to deny access.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission determined that while the RTI Act grants the right to access information, including inspection, the wide-ranging and unspecified nature of the request could hinder efficient public administration and warranted dismissal of the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts about rti applications and responses (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dissatisfaction and escalation of rti queries (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. citations regarding transparency in public offices (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. importance of proactive information disclosure under rti act (Para 10 , 11) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.11.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
“The information in the present RTI Application is related to CCTV cameras been installed by BEL under contract from PWD, GNCTD, under the GNCTD CCTV Camera Scheme.
Intent of larger public interest BEL is a public sector enterprises and have got a contract from PWD, GNCTD for installation of CCTV's as per the terms of contract for installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras in Delhi.
In turn, BEL also seems to have sub-contracted the work and paid the public money paid to various contractors for installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras in Delhi and which is a matter where larger public interest is involved in the form of proper and timely installation / maintenance / services for these CCTV's cameras, given by the contractor, as per the terms of the agreement, so as to ensure that public money is spent judiciously and properly and to the best interest of the citizen of Delhi.
Violation of RTI Act, 2005 by the Public Authority, as information asked by me in present RTI Application (i) related to my Online request PWD/CCTV/2022/05/19/1057 Dated 19.05.2022, which is approved by PWD Minister, GNCTD, for installation of CCTV's in public place near my home as well as (ii) CCTV Cameras all over Delhi (iii) Specifically related to Shalimar Bagh Assembly Constituency comes under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 Time and again, it is directed by various Judicial Courts (H'ble Supreme Court and H'ble High Courts) as well as Central Information Commission that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs.
Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
*37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010 ), wherein it was held as under:
16.lt also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean-making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and
