Right To Information

“as the investigation on TEP has been conducted by DIT
(Inv), the relevant report is the outcome of public action which needs to be
disclosed. This, therefore, cannot be exempted u/s.8(1)(j) as interpreted by
the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, DIT (Inv) is directed to disclose the
report as per the provision u/s.10(1) & (2), after the entire process of
investigation and tax recovery, if any, is complete in every respect’’

12. The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of
speech and expression. In an increasingly knowledge-based society,
information, and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits
and distribution of power. Information, more than any other element, is of
critical importance in a participatory democracy. By one fell stroke, under
the Act, the maze of procedures and officials barriers that had previously
impeded information, has been swept aside. The citizen and information seekers
have, subject to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be given information
on matters in the possession of the state and public agencies that are covered
by the Act. As is reflected in its preamble paragraphs, the enactment seeks to
promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the Government and its
instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be
borne in mind while constructing the provisions contained therein.

13. Access to information, u/s.3 of the Act, is the rule
and exemption u/s.8, the exceptions. S. 8 being a restriction on this
fundamental right, must therefore be strictly construed. It should not be
interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. U/s.8, exemption
from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of
investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the
mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of
the offenders; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory
reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the
investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the
process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans
this consideration, S. 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the
heaven for dodging demands for information.

14. A right based enactment is akin to a welfare measure
and like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual
background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions outlined in S.
8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information,
constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it.
Therefore such exemption provisions have to be constructed in their terms;
there is some authority supporting this view [see Nathan Devi v. Radha Devi
Gupta, 2005 I AD (SC) 357; VII (2004) SLT 615; 2005 (2) SCC 201; B. R.
Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu, VI (2001) SLT 659; 2001 (7) SCC 231 and
V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy, 1977 (3) SCC 99]. Adopting a different
approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially
mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is
unwarranted.

The Court then held as under:

“As to the issue of whether the investigation has been complete or not, I think that the authorities have not applied their mind about the nature of information sought. As is submit-ted by the Petitioner, he merely seeks access to the preliminary reports investigation pursuant to which notices u/s.131, u/s.143(2), u/s.148 of the Income -tax Act have been issued and not as to the outcome of the investigation and reassessment carried on by the Assessing Officer. As held in the preceding part of the judgment, without a disclosure as to how the investigation process would be hampered by sharing the materials collected till the notices were issued to the assessee, the respondents could not have rejected the request for granting information. The CIC, even after overruling the objection, should not have imposed the condition that information could be disclosed only after recovery was made.”

The Court then set aside the order of CIC in so for as it withholds information until tax recovery orders are made. It also directed PIO and AA to release the information sought on the basis of the materials available and collected by them within two weeks.

[Bhagat Singh v. CIC and others, WP(C) No. 3114 of 2007 dated 3-12-2007] [RTI R IV (2010) 223 (Delhi)]

                                     PART B?: The RTI Act, 2005

S. 19(8)(a) and implementation of S. 4 of the RTI Act:

S. 19 deals with “Appeal. Ss.(8) grants certain powers to the Information Commission (both central

&    state). Ss.(8) reads as under:

(8)    In its decision, the Central Information Com-mission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to:

(a)    require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including:
(i)    by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
(ii)    by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
(iii)    by publishing certain information or categories of information;
(iv)    by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
(v)    by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
(vi)    by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of Ss.(i) of S. 4;
(b)    require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
(c)    impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
(d)    reject the application.

It appears for the first time Commission has is-sued directions to Public Authorities u/s.19(8)(a) of the RTI Act as above jointly signed by 7 Central Information Commissioners. Document is dated 15-11-2010. Brief contents of the said directions are as under: