Business Standard: New Delhi: Thursday, May 24, 2018.
A division
bench of the Delhi High Court today delivered a split verdict on the issue of
whether it was compulsory to disclose the details of institutional donors in
the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund under the RTI Act.
The bench
referred the matter to the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to
allocate it before a third judge who will decide the question.
When the
bench Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sunil Gaur assembled for the pronouncement,
the judges said there was disagreement between them on the issue.
"We are
not in agreement with each other. So we have made a reference to the Acting
Chief Justice," Justice Bhat said. However, details of their judgements
were not available.
The bench was
hearing PMNRF's plea challenging a single judge's order of November 19, 2015
dismissing its petition against a 2012 Central Information Commission (CIC)
order asking it to disclose the details of its institutional donors.
The division
bench had earlier stayed the operation of the CIC order till further direction
saying the matter required consideration.
PMNRF had
approached the single judge in 2012 challenging the CIC's order which had said,
"we are of the view that the details of the institutional donors should be
placed in public domain and disclosed to the appellant (Aseem Takyar)".
However, the
CIC had said it would not be appropriate to direct the Central Public
Information Officer (CPIO) of PMNRF to disclose the names of the recipients and
beneficiaries of the fund.
Takyar had
sought information regarding PMNRF including the names and particulars of
donors and beneficiaries from 2009 to 2011 under the Right To Information (RTI)
Act.
The CPIO of
PMNRF had provided some information to Takyar but denied details regarding
donors and beneficiaries of the fund. Takyar had then approached the CIC.
After the CIC
order, PMNRF had moved the high court when a single judge bench dismissed its
plea saying the CIC's order was "well balanced".
PMNRF had
challenged the single judge order saying such information was private and must
be kept confidential.