Live Law: New Delhi: Thursday, 31 July 2025.
The Delhi High Court has
made it clear that the role of the Central Information Commission constituted
under the Right to Information Act 2005 is to ensure transparency and
disclosure of information by a public authority, and not make policy prescriptions.
Justice Prateek Jalan held thus while allowing Hindustan Petroleum Corporation's (HPCL) plea against a show cause notice issued to it by the CIC, upon its suspended employee's complaint alleging non-disclosure of information.
The employee had sought a list of HPCL's empaneled advocates.
HPCL responded that it does not empanel Advocates and rather engages them on a case to case basis. Nonetheless, the PSU furnished a list of 603 lawyers and the Courts before which they appeared on behalf of HPCL.
Remaining dissatisfied, the employee filed a complaint with the CIC, claiming that HPCL did in fact maintain a panel of advocates, and that details of the panel had been withheld contrary to the tenets of the RTI Act.
CIC then issued notice to HPCL, criticizing it for not empaneling advocates and failing to produce any guidelines that confer on them 'unfettered powers' for engaging lawyers without preparing panels.
HPCL then moved the High Court contending that CIC has no jurisdiction to enter into policy issues in this case, whether or not HPCL ought to maintain a panel of advocates.
It was contended that jurisdiction under the RTI Act is confined to furnishing of information maintained by the public authority, and a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act can be entertained only if the PIO has withheld information available with it, which was not the case herein.
Agreeing with HPCL's submissions, the High Court observed, “RTI Act is intended to foster transparency in government functions by supplying information available with public authorities to the citizens. It is not intended to require public authorities to go further, and provide information which they do not maintain.”
It noted that CIC proceeded on a completely different basis, with regard to the desirability of the practice of empaelling advocates.
“Its observations on this point were extraneous to the issue at hand…Whatever the views of CIC on the policy of HPCL in this regard, the only question before it was whether “information”, as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been denied mala fide, or incorrect, incomplete or misleading information has been knowingly furnished. The impugned order does not so indicate, but instead expresses policy prescriptions, which are beyond the remit of CIC,” the Court remarked.
Stating that such an approach of CIC was wholly ultra vires its powers under the RTI Act, the High Court set aside the show cause notice.
(Click here to read judgment)
Justice Prateek Jalan held thus while allowing Hindustan Petroleum Corporation's (HPCL) plea against a show cause notice issued to it by the CIC, upon its suspended employee's complaint alleging non-disclosure of information.
The employee had sought a list of HPCL's empaneled advocates.
HPCL responded that it does not empanel Advocates and rather engages them on a case to case basis. Nonetheless, the PSU furnished a list of 603 lawyers and the Courts before which they appeared on behalf of HPCL.
Remaining dissatisfied, the employee filed a complaint with the CIC, claiming that HPCL did in fact maintain a panel of advocates, and that details of the panel had been withheld contrary to the tenets of the RTI Act.
CIC then issued notice to HPCL, criticizing it for not empaneling advocates and failing to produce any guidelines that confer on them 'unfettered powers' for engaging lawyers without preparing panels.
HPCL then moved the High Court contending that CIC has no jurisdiction to enter into policy issues in this case, whether or not HPCL ought to maintain a panel of advocates.
It was contended that jurisdiction under the RTI Act is confined to furnishing of information maintained by the public authority, and a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act can be entertained only if the PIO has withheld information available with it, which was not the case herein.
Agreeing with HPCL's submissions, the High Court observed, “RTI Act is intended to foster transparency in government functions by supplying information available with public authorities to the citizens. It is not intended to require public authorities to go further, and provide information which they do not maintain.”
It noted that CIC proceeded on a completely different basis, with regard to the desirability of the practice of empaelling advocates.
“Its observations on this point were extraneous to the issue at hand…Whatever the views of CIC on the policy of HPCL in this regard, the only question before it was whether “information”, as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been denied mala fide, or incorrect, incomplete or misleading information has been knowingly furnished. The impugned order does not so indicate, but instead expresses policy prescriptions, which are beyond the remit of CIC,” the Court remarked.
Stating that such an approach of CIC was wholly ultra vires its powers under the RTI Act, the High Court set aside the show cause notice.
(Click here to read judgment)