Disposed

President'S Secretariat v. R.K. Jain

Delhi HC13 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/98/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a CIC order, the Court directed the President's Secretariat to provide only the list of invitees to an Oath Ceremony for CII and CVC held in 2015, dispensing with the need to examine exemptions for other requested records.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to provide the list of invitees for the Oath Ceremony of the Chief Information Commissioner and Central Vigilance Commissioner held on 10.06.2015 within four weeks.

President'S Secretariat Vs R.K. Jain — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 98/2017 & CM No. 519/2017

¶4

PRESIDENT'S SECRETARIAT ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr Srivats Kaushal and Mr Aditya Madaan, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

R.K. JAIN ..... Respondent Through: Mr Dinesh C. Pandey and Mr Rajeev Gurung, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶9

% 13.07.2018

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’) directing the petitioner to provide the information as sought for by the respondent.

¶11

The respondent had filed an application dated 22.06.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the Act’), inter alia , praying for the following information:-

¶12

“(A) Please provide the list of the invitees to the Oath Ceremony of Siri Vijai Shamia, Chief Information Commissioner and Shri K.V. Chowdary, Central Vigilance Commissioner held or 10-6-2015 at Rashtrapati Bhawan.

¶13

(B) Please also provide copy of the communications and messages received suggesting names of the

¶14

Guests for issue of the invitations for the Oath Ceremony.

¶15

¶16

(D) Please intimate the file No. in, which the invitations for the aforesaid Oath Ceremony has been dealt with and please provide copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages.”

¶17

The CPIO of the petitioner declined to provide any information with regard to the list of invitees or the messages received suggesting the names or the copies of the note sheets and correspondence pages of the file number (information as required under Point no. A,B &D). Insofar as the respondent’s request for policy/guidelines is concerned, the petitioner’s CPIO informed that there was no policy or guidelines and the decision as to the invitees is based on past precedent. It was claimed that the information as sought by the respondent could not be provided to him as the same was exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

¶18

Aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The said appeal was rejected by an order dated 17.09.2015. The respondent, thereafter, filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act assailing the decision of the FAA before the CIC.

¶19

The contention that the information sought by the respondent was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the Act was not accepted by the CIC and the petitioner has been directed to provide the information as sought for.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the respondent will be satisfied if only the list of invitees for the swearing in function of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Chief Information Commissioner, held on 10.06.2015 at Rashtrapati Bhawan, is provided to him.

¶21

Admittedly, this was an official function and, therefore, this Court is unable to find any fault with the direction of the CIC to provide the list of invitees.

¶22

Since the learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not press for disclosure of any other information, there is no need to examine whether disclosure of such information is exempted under the provisions of the Act. It is also, consequently, clarified that the impugned order in this regard is not required to be implemented. And, the petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to provide the list of invitees as sought for by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today.

¶23

The pending application is also disposed of.

¶24

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶25

JULY 13, 2018 MK

President'S Secretariat v. R.K. Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

President'S Secretariat v. R.K. Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. K. R. Chitra Vs Registrar General, High Court of Delhi

Finest Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pragati Marbles & Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Import) & Anr.

Vicky Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bliss Trading Company Vs the Additional Director General. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors.

Lalit Kapur Vs Union of India& Anr.

Center for Law & Good Governance Vs Ministry of Power & Ors.

Rainbow Fashions, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, & Anr.

Ms. K. R. Chitra Vs Registrar General, High Court of Delhi

Amit Kumar Vs Bharati College, (University of Delhi ) & Ors.

M/S Ambica Tradexpo Private Ltd. through Its Director- Vikas Vasudeva Vs M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Police Vs National Human Rights Commission

Tata Petrodyne Limited Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Sitwat Khalid Vs State ( Govt NCT of Delhi ) & Ors.