Legal World: Delhi: Wednesday,
28 August 2024.
The Delhi High Court has
stated that the decision to disclose or exemption from disclosure of information
should be made judiciously. The matter was heard before Justice Sanjeev Narula.
The approach undertaken should not compromise the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, “while also respecting the confidentiality required in
judicial proceedings’, said Delhi High Court order.
The petition filed by Central Public Information Officer of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, challenging the order which was passed by the Chief Information Commissioner.
The matter was heard before Justice Sanjeev Narula.
The bench held that the absence of a specific prohibition in the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, regarding access to NCDRC records to third parties, should not be construed as an implicit prohibition. The interpretation of abovementioned regulation must align with the overarching goal of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the purpose of enhancing transparency and access to information.
The court further found that mere status of an individual as a ‘third party’ is immaterial and thus, the existence of such status shall not automatically exclude them from the right to access information, especially when such information might have broader public implications.
The petitioner was represented by Vidur Mohan, Kaushal Kumar Singh and Shefali Munde.
The respondent was represented by Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, K.V. Prasad and Anirudh Anand.
The petition filed by Central Public Information Officer of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, challenging the order which was passed by the Chief Information Commissioner.
The matter was heard before Justice Sanjeev Narula.
The bench held that the absence of a specific prohibition in the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, regarding access to NCDRC records to third parties, should not be construed as an implicit prohibition. The interpretation of abovementioned regulation must align with the overarching goal of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the purpose of enhancing transparency and access to information.
The court further found that mere status of an individual as a ‘third party’ is immaterial and thus, the existence of such status shall not automatically exclude them from the right to access information, especially when such information might have broader public implications.
The petitioner was represented by Vidur Mohan, Kaushal Kumar Singh and Shefali Munde.
The respondent was represented by Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, K.V. Prasad and Anirudh Anand.
.JPG)
.JPG)
