Outlook India: New Delhi: Monday,
May 30, 2016.
Taking a
stern view of unnecessary litigation, Delhi High Court has directed the
Government to recover Rs 10,000 from the salary of its officials for
challenging a CIC order which directed them to pay the same amount as
compensation to the National Law School for not complying with RTI Act.
Justice
Manmohan said it has been averred that the respondent (RTI applicant Vansh
Sharad Gupta) never filed an RTI application in the prescribed form and the
requisite fee.
It is also
stated that the respondent did not file the first appeal and hence the second
appeal could not have been entertained by the CIC, he noted.
"This
Court is not an appellate Court of the CIC. Technical and procedural arguments
cannot be allowed to come in the way of substantial justice. The directions
given by the CIC in the impugned order are not only fair and reasonable but
also promote the concept of rule of law.
"It is
unfortunate that the petitioner did not take the initiative on his own to
upload the latest amended bare Acts," Justice Manmohan said upholding the
order of Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu.
He said this
Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that in challenging the imposition
of costs of Rs.10,000/-, the Government of India would have spent more money in
filing the present writ petition.
"Consequently,
this Court is of the view that the costs of Rs 10,000 which was directed to be
paid by the CIC, should be recovered from the salary of the Government officials
who authorised the filing of the present writ petition," he said.
He said
public can be expected to follow the law only if law is easily accessible
"at the click of a button".
"In
fact, as rightly pointed out by the CIC, the RTI Act itself mandates the
Government to place the texts of enactments in public domain," he said.
The case
relates to email of Vansh Sharad Gupta, a law student at National Law School of
India University, to Law Ministry wanting to know e-mail ID of CPIO,
Legislative department. More
Not getting
any information, Gupta filed a complaint with the CIC. He
wanted access to Christian Marriage Act, 1972 from the website. Gupta wanted
the bare act but it was not properly formatted. He claimed that he is required
to study bare acts but Law Ministry website was no help at all.
Wanting to
access bare acts in PDF format, he wanted email of the Legislative Department
CPIO.
In his order,
Acharyulu had said it was a duty upon the state to inform citizens about the
Law as and when they were made and the citizens also have the right to know of
the Law.
"If is
impossible for any Government to expect obedience to their Law without
informing the people in legible form. It is more difficult especially when the
text of Law is not available in easy accessible format," he had said.
Directing the
Ministry to pay a token compensation of Rs 10,000 to the library of National
Law School of India University, Bengaluru, for causing loss of time of several
law students, he had said the law and enactments are in public domain and none
can claim copyright on the law.
"Section
4 mandates the Ministry of Law to place the texts of enactments. It is the duty
of Legislative Department to provide information about access of every updated
enactment. It is not just an recommended obligation under Section 4(1)(a) of
RTI Act, but a constitutional mandate, a legal necessity, and an essential
requirement for peace," he had said.
The Ministry
had challenged it before the Delhi High Court through a writ petition.
.JPG)
.JPG)
