The
New Indian Express: Chennai: Friday, 19 September 2014.
Redefining
the scope of the Right to Information Act (RTI), Madras High Court has held
that anyone seeking information under the statute must show that the purpose is
either personal or of public interest. Under both circumstances, the RTI
applicant must disclose at least the minimum details as to what is the personal
or public interest requiring such information. If such details are either
absent or not disclosed, such query cannot be construed as the one satisfying
the requirement of the RTI Act, the Court further ruled.
A Division
Bench of Justices N Paul Vasanthakumar and K Ravichandrabaabu made the
observation, setting aside an order of the CIC, directing the High Court Public
Information Officer (PIO) to furnish information to an applicant, refused on
the ground that it fell under the restricted category.
The Bench was
allowing a writ petition from the PIO, seeking to quash January 23, 2013 order
of the CIC. The order directed the PIO to furnish answers to a set of umpteen
number of questions, raised by one B Bharathi with regard to the fate of his
complaint against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Egmore and appointment
of Registrar-General to the High Court. Holding that the information sought for
by the applicant fell under the restricted category, the PIO refused to furnish
the reply and Bharathy moved the CIC.
Setting aside
the order of the CIC, the Bench observed on September 17 that the word ‘Right’
is not defined under the RTI Act. In the absence of any definition of ‘right’,
it has to be understood to mean that such a right must have a legal basis.
Therefore, the ‘right’ must be coupled with an object or purpose to be
achieved. Such object and purpose must, undoubtedly, have a legal basis or be
legally sustainable and enforceable. It cannot be construed that a request or
query made ‘simpliciter’ will fall under the definition of ‘right to
information’.
“Therefore, we are of the view that the
impugned order of the CIC is bereft of any material particulars in so far as
those applications referred to in the order and the direction issued to the PIO
in that regard is also not sustainable,” the Bench said.
The Bench
also pulled up Bharathi for overloading the HC Registry by making several
queries or complaints under the RTI Act. It cannot be the way to redress his
grievances. He cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources
while seeking information and the dispensation of information should not occupy
the majority of time and resource of any public authority, the Bench added.
.JPG)
.JPG)
