Bar and Bench: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 23 August 2023.
Criticising a cryptic SIC order declining to disclose information under the RTI Act, the Court said that the order should be self-explanatory and should not have had "rubber stamp" reasons.
Cryptic and non-speaking orders passed by authorities under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) recently drew criticism from the Punjab & Haryana High Court. [Rajwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and ors]
Justice Vikas Bahl noted that such vague orders violated the mandate of the RTI Act as well as various Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
“This Court has found that in a large number of cases, the authorities including the first Appellate Authority…and the second Appellate Authority…under the Act, have been passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts and also in violation of the mandate of the Act of 2005,” the order said.
The judge proceeded to specify that the following aspects must be clearly specified by the first and second appellate authorities under the RTI Act while passing orders disclosing or declining to disclose information:
The High Court passed the judgment while partly allowing a petition filed by one Rajwinder Singh who was aggrieved by an order of the State Information Commission (SIC), Punjab.
The High Court proceeded to ask the SIC to consider the RTI appeal again on finding that the earlier order was passed without recording reasons.
“The order should have been self-explanatory and reasons given in the same should not have been rubber stamp reasons. The same has not been done in the present case and the impugned order passed is cryptic and non-speaking,” Justice Bahl said.
The Court emphasised that the SIC is a quasi-judicial authority that is required to pass reasoned orders. While remanding the matter back to the RTI authority, the Court clarified that it has not given any final opinion on the merits of the case.
Advocate Amandeep Singh Saini appeared for the petitioner. Senior Deputy Advocate General of Punjab Rohit Bansal appeared for the State authorities.
[Read Judgment]
Criticising a cryptic SIC order declining to disclose information under the RTI Act, the Court said that the order should be self-explanatory and should not have had "rubber stamp" reasons.
Cryptic and non-speaking orders passed by authorities under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) recently drew criticism from the Punjab & Haryana High Court. [Rajwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and ors]
Justice Vikas Bahl noted that such vague orders violated the mandate of the RTI Act as well as various Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
“This Court has found that in a large number of cases, the authorities including the first Appellate Authority…and the second Appellate Authority…under the Act, have been passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts and also in violation of the mandate of the Act of 2005,” the order said.
The judge proceeded to specify that the following aspects must be clearly specified by the first and second appellate authorities under the RTI Act while passing orders disclosing or declining to disclose information:
- The points on which the information is sought by the applicant as per his/her application filed under the RTI Act;
- The point-wise reply to the information sought;
- A categorical finding as to whether the information on any of the points has been supplied or not and if supplied, the date on which it has been supplied;
- In case it is the stand of the authorities that information is not to be supplied on account of any bar under the RTI Act or for any other reason, such a stand should be recorded and the finding on the parties’ submissions should be recorded;
- Any other observation which the authority deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to be recorded.
The High Court passed the judgment while partly allowing a petition filed by one Rajwinder Singh who was aggrieved by an order of the State Information Commission (SIC), Punjab.
The High Court proceeded to ask the SIC to consider the RTI appeal again on finding that the earlier order was passed without recording reasons.
“The order should have been self-explanatory and reasons given in the same should not have been rubber stamp reasons. The same has not been done in the present case and the impugned order passed is cryptic and non-speaking,” Justice Bahl said.
The Court emphasised that the SIC is a quasi-judicial authority that is required to pass reasoned orders. While remanding the matter back to the RTI authority, the Court clarified that it has not given any final opinion on the merits of the case.
Advocate Amandeep Singh Saini appeared for the petitioner. Senior Deputy Advocate General of Punjab Rohit Bansal appeared for the State authorities.
[Read Judgment]
.JPG)
.JPG)
