Dismissed

B. Bharathi v. The Central Information

Madras HC12 Oct 2018WP/28499/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought penalty and Rs. 5 crore compensation for alleged denial of RTI information. The court observed the value of RTI in fighting corruption while emphasizing exemptions for confidential data and directing the High Court to adhere strictly to statutory timelines for future disclosures.

What did the court decide?

No penalty or compensation granted. The High Court administration directed to adhere to time limits and initiate action for lapses.

B. Bharathi Vs The Central Information — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 12-10-2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.28499 of 2015

¶6

And

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015 and W.M.P.Nos.10184 and 10185 of 2017

¶8

B.Bharathi .. Petitioner ..Vs..

¶9

1.The Central Information Commission, Represented by the Registrar, Room No.306, 2^nd Floor, “B” Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.

¶10

2.The Secretary, Central Information Commission, Room No.306, 2^nd Floor, “B” Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.

¶11

3.The Registrar General cum First Appellate Authority, Madras High Court, Broadway, Chennai-600 104.

¶12

4.The Registrar (Administration) cum Central Public Information Officer, Madras High Court, Broadway,

¶13

Chennai – 600 104. .. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent-Central Information Commission/ Second Appellate Authority to pass separate order imposing penalty on each and every complaint after conducting the hearing meeting as mentioned above for his willful denial of information under RTI Act, 2005 in the presence of the writ petitioner and also pass orders to the fourth respondent/Registrar (Administration)-cum-Central Public Information Officer, Madras High Court to provide information to the writ petitioner that

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

information requested by him and subsequently, pass order to the second respondent/Secretary, Central Information Commission to grant and pay a sum of Rs.5 crores to the writ petitioner as compensation for subjecting him to mental sufferings, humiliation and for gross violation of his rights.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Bharathi (Party-in-Person)

¶18

For Respondents-3&4: Mr.B.Vijay

¶19

For Respondents-1&2: No Appearance

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent-Central Information Commission/Second Appellate Authority to pass separate order, imposing penalty on each and every complaint, after conducting the hearing meeting, as mentioned above, for the writ petitioner's willful denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in his presence and also pass orders to the fourth respondent/Registrar (Administration)-cum-Central Public Information Officer, Madras High Court to provide information to the writ petitioner that the information requested by him and subsequently, pass orders to the second respondent/ Secretary, Central Information Commission to grant and pay a sum of Rs.5 crores to the writ petitioner as compensation for subjecting him to mental sufferings, humiliation and for gross violation of his rights.

¶22

The writ petitioner, appearing in person, articulated his grievances by stating that the questions/informations asked by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 had not been answered properly. The party-in-person, who is a retired Professor from Collegiate Education and, who is able to represent his case properly, inform this Court that, he is aggrieved from and out of the actions of the respondents and the informations sought for by the writ petitioner has not been provided in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶23

The writ petitioner contended that a 'reply' has been given by the respondents in certain applications. However, the 'answers' warranted were not given. In other words, it is stated that the reply given by the respondents cannot be equated with the answers, which all are useful for the writ petitioner to initiate all further actions against the irregularities and illegalities committed by the Administrative Authorities.

¶24

In this regard, the writ petitioner has enclosed certain applications submitted by him before the Public

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

Information Officer, High Court of Madras. The writ petitionerin-person contended that he approached the Central Information Commission also. The Central Information Commission initiated actions for imposing penalty under the provisions of the Act. However, the writ petitioner was not informed about the further process in spite of the complaint made by him against the Public Information Officer.

¶27

With these grievances, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

¶28

None appeared for the Central Information Commission-first and second respondents.

¶29

The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4/High Court of Madras, informed this Court that the writ petitioner had already submitted number of applications under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondents 3 and 4/Madras High Court have given reply in respect of the applications submitted by the writ petitioner. Even with reference to the present writ petition the writ petitioner himself enclosed the questions as well as the answers along with the typed set of papers filed in this writ petition. The writ petitioner is also fair enough and not suppressed any of those facts before this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 contended that certain informations are protected under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Certain sundry informations and the File Notes cannot be supplied on account of the bar under the Act. This apart, certain informations are protected and the disputes raised in this regard are now pending consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, such protected informations cannot be furnished to the writ petitioner as per his applications. As far as possible, the informations sought for had already been furnished to the writ petitioner and therefore, there is no infirmity in respect of the actions taken by the respondents 3 and 4 with reference to the applications submitted by the writ petitioner.

¶31

The writ petitioner states that he has got every right to ask questions on his own if the same is required for the purpose of initiating actions against the corruption or illegality or irregularity in the public administration. This Court has no hesitation or doubt in respect of the submissions made by the writ petitioner.

¶32

Corruption is spreading like Cancer in our Great Nation. Persons, like the petitioner, are to be encouraged if they are genuinely acts against the activities of corruption.

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

This Court is not discouraging the motivation of the writ petitioner to fight against the corruption. The writ petitioner is none other than the retired Professor of a College, who has got some social commitments and responsibilities. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner has got every right to fight against corruption in this country and consequently, he has got every right to seek informations from all public authorities, by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶35

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a cherished one. It provides right to all citizen to verify the genuinity of the administrative actions taken by the Competent Authorities. Thus, such valuable rights conferred under the provisions of the Act, can never be restricted or curbed by the authorities or by the Courts.

¶36

Thus, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that the grievances of the writ petitioner in respect of furnishing informations regarding the administrative decisions and the other related procedures are to be furnished. However, certain protected informations cannot be given on account of the confidentiality or security reasons, which all are under the Constitutional Schemes. Such exemptions are provided under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, while taking decisions not to provide such informations to the information seekers, then the Public Information Officer is duty bound to assign the reasons for not providing such informations with reference to the Act.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Central Board of Secondary Education and Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others [(2011) 8 SCC 497], in paragraphs 66 and 67, held as under:-

¶38

“66. The right to information is a

¶39

cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of the RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information [that is, information other than those enumerated in Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act], equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

(like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of Governments, etc.).

¶42

Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”

¶43

The letter and spirit of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was reiterated by the Apex Court of India in the judgment, cited supra. Thus, it is unnecessary to inform the Competent Authorities that they are bound to furnish the answers to the information seekers for the questions asked by them under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶44

The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 also informed this Court that the writ petitioner had already submitted many number of applications and those applications were also dealt with by the High Court of Madras and the informations were provided to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, though accepted the fact that he received the reply from the High Court of Madras and informed this Court that he is not satisfied with certain answers provided by the High Court of Madras.

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

This apart, a complaint is made by the writ petitioner that the High Court had not provided the informations within the time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Act, i.e., 30 days. Therefore, the authorities/Public Information Officer of the High Court of Madras also shall ensure that the informations are hereafter provided to the information seekers, within the time limit of 30 days prescribed under the Act.

¶47

It is needless to state that the High Court Administration is bound by the provisions of the Act. When they are bound by the provisions of the Act, undoubtedly, they have to follow the provisions of the Act. In the event of any lapses, negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the officials of the Madras High Court, then the Competent Authorities of the Registry is bound to initiate action against all those officials, who have committed such lapses, negligence or dereliction of duty.

¶48

In this regard, the Registrar-General of Madras High Court should ensure that such applications submitted under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, are dealt in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the time limit prescribed under the Act, has been scrupulously adhered to. In the event of any lapses on the part of the Officials concerned, actions are to be initiated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

¶49

This being the principles to be followed, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner, as a responsible citizen/retired Professor of a College, has to ask questions, which would be of useful to him, to fight against the corruption and corrupt activities in this Great Nation. However, such impracticable and sundry questions shall be avoided by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner also informs before this Court that hereafter he will ask questions, which would be of genuinely useful in the interest of the public and the public administration.

¶50

The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, also informed this Court that the officials will assist such persons, who all are genuinely asking questions in the interest of public and to protect the public administration.

¶51

This being the spirit shown by the respective parties appeared before this Court, this Court fervently hope that the writ petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4 act with spirit and in the interest of public administration and in compliance of the provisions of the Act, strictly and scrupulously.

¶52

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶53

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

s/d-

¶55

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶56

True Copy

¶57

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶58

Svn To

¶59

1.The Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No.306, 2^nd Floor, “B” Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. 2.The Secretary, Central Information Commission, Room No.306, 2^nd Floor, “B” Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. 3.The Registrar General cum First Appellate Authority, Madras High Court, Broadway, Chennai-600 104. 4.The Registrar (Administration) cum Central Public Information Officer, Madras High Court, Broadway, Chennai – 600 104. WP No.28499 of 2015 CP(CO) SP(15/11/2018)

¶60

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

B. Bharathi v. The Central Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Bharathi v. The Central Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Logamani, Vs The Joint Director

R.Maheswari (EX.W.PC.2714 Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

K.Palani Vs the District Educational

Mr.P.Varadarajan, Vs Chief Controlling Revenue

M/s. Jaicon Construction Vs District Consumer Disputes

Sundaram, Vs The Special Commissioner