Bar and Bench: Delhi: Saturday, 27 April 2024.
The Court said that if
information is denied on the ground that it is voluminous, then it would amount
to adding one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an authority cannot deny information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) on the ground that the information sought is bulky [Indian Institute of Foreign Trade v. Kamal Jit Chibber].
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that if the Court accepts this contention, it would amount to adding any one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
“The information sought by the Respondent [RTI Applicant] herein does not fall in any of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The only reason that has been given in the Writ Petition for not providing the information sought by the Respondent is that the information is bulky and it is not possible for the authorities to provide the information as sought for by the Respondent. If this Court accepts the contentions raised in the present Writ Petition, it will amount to adding one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act,” the Court noted.
The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT) challenging an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing it to provide complete and categorical information sought by one Kamal Jit Chibber.
Two orders were passed by the CIC on December 25, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In the first order, the Commission ordered IIFT to allow Chibber to inspect the records. However, in the January, 2016 order, the CIC directed the Institute to provide categorical information on all 27 points raised by him.
IIFT told the CIC that Chibber has been engaged in filing numerous RTIs which are repetitive in nature and has been demanding voluminous information and documents. It informed the High Court that Chibber is a former employee of the Institute and has filed upwards of 60 RTI applications, each containing 20-30 questions, which would require immense resources to answer.
The Institute argued that the information sought by Chibber is voluminous, disclosure of which was denied under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, as it would have taken a lot of resources.
After considering the case, the Bench rejected the contention that there was a direct conflict in the two orders passed by the CIC.
The Bench noted that the information sought does not fall in any of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act.
“It is not the case of the Petitioner that the information sought by the Respondent would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or that the information sought is expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court or that it would amount to a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State legislature or that the information sought for by the Respondent includes commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.”
The Court, therefore, upheld the CIC order and rejected the petition by the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
[Read Judgment]
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an authority cannot deny information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) on the ground that the information sought is bulky [Indian Institute of Foreign Trade v. Kamal Jit Chibber].
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that if the Court accepts this contention, it would amount to adding any one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
“The information sought by the Respondent [RTI Applicant] herein does not fall in any of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The only reason that has been given in the Writ Petition for not providing the information sought by the Respondent is that the information is bulky and it is not possible for the authorities to provide the information as sought for by the Respondent. If this Court accepts the contentions raised in the present Writ Petition, it will amount to adding one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act,” the Court noted.
The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT) challenging an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing it to provide complete and categorical information sought by one Kamal Jit Chibber.
Two orders were passed by the CIC on December 25, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In the first order, the Commission ordered IIFT to allow Chibber to inspect the records. However, in the January, 2016 order, the CIC directed the Institute to provide categorical information on all 27 points raised by him.
IIFT told the CIC that Chibber has been engaged in filing numerous RTIs which are repetitive in nature and has been demanding voluminous information and documents. It informed the High Court that Chibber is a former employee of the Institute and has filed upwards of 60 RTI applications, each containing 20-30 questions, which would require immense resources to answer.
The Institute argued that the information sought by Chibber is voluminous, disclosure of which was denied under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, as it would have taken a lot of resources.
After considering the case, the Bench rejected the contention that there was a direct conflict in the two orders passed by the CIC.
The Bench noted that the information sought does not fall in any of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act.
“It is not the case of the Petitioner that the information sought by the Respondent would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or that the information sought is expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court or that it would amount to a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State legislature or that the information sought for by the Respondent includes commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.”
The Court, therefore, upheld the CIC order and rejected the petition by the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
[Read Judgment]
.JPG)
.JPG)
