The Hindu: New Delhi: Thursday, 3rd July 2025.
Bench highlights outdated reliance on floppies and diskettes; seeks decision within three months
The Delhi High Court on
Wednesday (July 2, 2025) directed the Central government to consider amending
the existing Right to Information (RTI) Rules to facilitate the provision of
information through modern electronic formats such as email, pen drives, or
cloud-based platforms.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the competent authority to take an appropriate decision on the matter within a period of three months.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. Aditya Chauhan, who highlighted that Rule 4(d) of the RTI Rules, 2012 continues to refer to obsolete mediums like diskettes and floppies devices no longer in practical use due to the absence of compatible hardware to provide RTI responses.
The petition underscored the absurdity of relying on defunct storage formats when technology has since advanced to include pen drives, cloud storage, and secure digital transfers.
Mr. Chauhan, in his plea, submitted that he had requested information under the RTI Act to be provided in PDF format via pen drive, but received inconsistent and arbitrary responses from various Public Information Officers (PIOs).
He pointed out that several PIOs categorically refused to provide the information in floppy disk or diskette format, citing the unavailability of compatible devices. “At the same time, when the petitioners suggested the use of a pen drive as a practical alternative, the responses were inconsistent and arbitrary,” the plea stated.
According to Mr. Chauhan, “Some PIOs outright denied the request on the ground that there is no legal provision permitting the use of pen drives; others rejected the request citing vague and unsupported concerns about data integrity or potential virus threats; while a few officials agreed conditionally but demanded excessive and unspecified charges, without any basis in the RTI Act or the RTI Rules.”
He further argued that if PIOs impose fees based on personal discretion, it could result in unfair treatment and hardship for RTI applicants. Conversely, he said, not charging any fee could lead to a loss of legitimate revenue for the government.
“This gap in the legal framework highlights the urgent need for updated provisions that clearly define fee structures for providing information through contemporary electronic means, balancing the interests of both RTI applicants and the government,” Mr. Chauhan submitted.
Bench highlights outdated reliance on floppies and diskettes; seeks decision within three months
A Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the competent authority to take an appropriate decision on the matter within a period of three months.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. Aditya Chauhan, who highlighted that Rule 4(d) of the RTI Rules, 2012 continues to refer to obsolete mediums like diskettes and floppies devices no longer in practical use due to the absence of compatible hardware to provide RTI responses.
The petition underscored the absurdity of relying on defunct storage formats when technology has since advanced to include pen drives, cloud storage, and secure digital transfers.
Mr. Chauhan, in his plea, submitted that he had requested information under the RTI Act to be provided in PDF format via pen drive, but received inconsistent and arbitrary responses from various Public Information Officers (PIOs).
He pointed out that several PIOs categorically refused to provide the information in floppy disk or diskette format, citing the unavailability of compatible devices. “At the same time, when the petitioners suggested the use of a pen drive as a practical alternative, the responses were inconsistent and arbitrary,” the plea stated.
According to Mr. Chauhan, “Some PIOs outright denied the request on the ground that there is no legal provision permitting the use of pen drives; others rejected the request citing vague and unsupported concerns about data integrity or potential virus threats; while a few officials agreed conditionally but demanded excessive and unspecified charges, without any basis in the RTI Act or the RTI Rules.”
He further argued that if PIOs impose fees based on personal discretion, it could result in unfair treatment and hardship for RTI applicants. Conversely, he said, not charging any fee could lead to a loss of legitimate revenue for the government.
“This gap in the legal framework highlights the urgent need for updated provisions that clearly define fee structures for providing information through contemporary electronic means, balancing the interests of both RTI applicants and the government,” Mr. Chauhan submitted.
.JPG)
.JPG)
