Live Law: New Delhi: Wednesday, 7 August 2024.
The Delhi High Court has
ruled that the compensation awarded by Central Information Commission (CIC)
under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has to directly correlate with the personal
detriment experienced by the complainant.
“Thus, while the CIC possesses the authority to award compensation to information seeker, it is imperative that such compensation directly correlates with the personal detriment experienced by the complainant…,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
“Awarding compensation based on losses suffered by parties other than the complainant stretches beyond the intended scope of Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act,” the court added.
Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act states that the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.
The court observed that the RTI Act does not place an upper limit on the amount of compensation that the CIC can award under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act.
“This provision is intended to redress any loss or detriment that the complainant may have suffered due to non-compliance with the Act by a public authority. However, CIC's power to award compensation to the complainant under the aforenoted provision must necessarily be connected to or a consequence of denial of complete information as sought by the complainant,” the court said.
It added that CIC cannot take recourse to Section 19(8)(b) of the Act to provide compensation in relation to any other dispute that an information seeker may have with the public authority
which is not relatable or connected with the provisions of the Act.
“The CIC's compensatory powers must be applied judiciously and only where a clear causal connection exists between the act of non-compliance and loss or detriment suffered by the information seeker,” it said.
Justice Narula was dealing with a plea moved by PIO of South Delhi Municipal Corporation's RP Cell, against the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000 by CIC to a complainant while deciding the second appeal.
The court noted that the PIO initially provided some information to the complainant but withheld certain crucial details about the allotment and usage of the parking area involved.
It further noted that the, upon reviewing the entirety of the circumstances, found that there was a wilful obstruction of information which could have facilitated legal or corrective measures by the affected individuals or entities.
“The Court notes that the delay in providing the requested information undoubtedly hindered Respondent No. 2 in pursuing timely legal remedies. As a consequence, Respondent No. 2 incurred unnecessary expenses for parking facilities that should have been available at no cost. This direct financial impact, resulting from the delayed disclosure of information, underscores the substantive connection between the denial of information and the financial losses incurred by Respondent No.2,” the court said.
It added: “In the opinion of the court, even if the losses suffered by individuals other than the complainant/Respondent No,2 is not factored in, compensation of INR 50,000/- is justified. This amount accounts for the financial losses incurred by Respondent No. 2, including parking charges, legal fees, and other costs associated with pursuing the issue following the denial of information by the Petitioner.”
(Click here to read order)
“Thus, while the CIC possesses the authority to award compensation to information seeker, it is imperative that such compensation directly correlates with the personal detriment experienced by the complainant…,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
“Awarding compensation based on losses suffered by parties other than the complainant stretches beyond the intended scope of Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act,” the court added.
Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act states that the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.
The court observed that the RTI Act does not place an upper limit on the amount of compensation that the CIC can award under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act.
“This provision is intended to redress any loss or detriment that the complainant may have suffered due to non-compliance with the Act by a public authority. However, CIC's power to award compensation to the complainant under the aforenoted provision must necessarily be connected to or a consequence of denial of complete information as sought by the complainant,” the court said.
It added that CIC cannot take recourse to Section 19(8)(b) of the Act to provide compensation in relation to any other dispute that an information seeker may have with the public authority
which is not relatable or connected with the provisions of the Act.
“The CIC's compensatory powers must be applied judiciously and only where a clear causal connection exists between the act of non-compliance and loss or detriment suffered by the information seeker,” it said.
Justice Narula was dealing with a plea moved by PIO of South Delhi Municipal Corporation's RP Cell, against the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000 by CIC to a complainant while deciding the second appeal.
The court noted that the PIO initially provided some information to the complainant but withheld certain crucial details about the allotment and usage of the parking area involved.
It further noted that the, upon reviewing the entirety of the circumstances, found that there was a wilful obstruction of information which could have facilitated legal or corrective measures by the affected individuals or entities.
“The Court notes that the delay in providing the requested information undoubtedly hindered Respondent No. 2 in pursuing timely legal remedies. As a consequence, Respondent No. 2 incurred unnecessary expenses for parking facilities that should have been available at no cost. This direct financial impact, resulting from the delayed disclosure of information, underscores the substantive connection between the denial of information and the financial losses incurred by Respondent No.2,” the court said.
It added: “In the opinion of the court, even if the losses suffered by individuals other than the complainant/Respondent No,2 is not factored in, compensation of INR 50,000/- is justified. This amount accounts for the financial losses incurred by Respondent No. 2, including parking charges, legal fees, and other costs associated with pursuing the issue following the denial of information by the Petitioner.”
(Click here to read order)
.JPG)
.JPG)
