Court does U-turn on RTI petitioners stating reasons

Times of India: Chennai: Wednesday, 24 September 2014.

In a rare and bold move, the Madras high court suo motu reviewed and corrected its own order dated September 17 it which it observed that an applicant seeking information under the RTI Act should state reasons for doing so.

A division bench of Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice K Ravichandrabaabu said the general observations in the earlier order stating that an RTI application "should contain minimum details or reasons for which information is sought for" were made without noticing Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. The provision specifically says an applicant need not give any reason for an RTI plea.

Conceding that it was an error, the bench said: "The error has been noticed by us after pronouncing the order on September 17, and in order to rectify the error in paragraphs 20 and 21, yesterday [Monday] we directed the registry to post this matter today [Tuesday] under 'suo motu review'.

Noting that it was evident that an information-seeking was not required to give any reason for seeking the details, the judges said their earlier order was contrary to the statutory provision. It then directed the registry to issue fresh copies of the order after deleting the two paragraphs where they had observed that an applicant must give reasons.

Days after the order was reported, several RTI activists including senior lawyer Prashanth Bhushan slammed the verdict and said it went against the letter and spirit of the pro-transparency legislation.

An RTI application filed by B Bharathi sought several information pertaining to appointment of registrars and the registrar-general of the high court, and the appointment procedures. After the state information commission directed the high court registry to furnish the information sought for, the registrar (administration) who is the public information officer of the high court, filed the present petition to stall information flow.

While allowing it, the court had observed that minimum particulars must be furnished by the applicants seeking information.