Confidentially can’t hide Information: SC strengthening the arms of the Right to Information Act in a manner that thwarts the Government’s procedural antics to stall information regarding corruption and human rights violations by investigation agencies under the garb of confidentiality, the Supreme Court has ruled that a Notification issued by a State for that purpose in mind can’t be made effective from retrospective date.
In a significant judgment on Monday, the Apex Court held that the Notifications under the RTI Act cannot apply retrospectively. It means, information in response to an RTI query can’t be denied merely because a Notification has been issued after the date of application.
The right of an aggrieved applicant must be decided on the basis of the law as it stood on the date when the request is made. “Such a right cannot be defeated on the basis of a Notification if issued subsequently at a time when the controversy about the RTI is pending before the Court,” a Bench of Justices Asok Kumar Ganguly and Gyan Sudha Misra ruled while disposing of an appeal filed by a resident of Manipur, Wahangbam Joykumar, who had moved the State in February, 2007 under RTI seeking information regarding the magisterial enquiries initiated by the State from 1980 to 2006.
The Government denied this information on the basis of Notification issued in 2007.
Allowing Joykumar’s appeal, the Bench asked him to seek the requisite information now as it directed the State to provide him the information.
Stressing the importance of the RTI Act, the Apex Court said its preamble would show that it “is based on the concept of an open society. Way back in 1975, the Apex Court had underscored the need of an ‘open government’ and observed that “the people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries”.
It had also said that people are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know is “derived from the concept of freedom of speech though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transaction which can rate, have no repercussion on public security”.
It also warned saying that “to cover with veil of secrecy, the common routine business, is not in the interest of public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired”.
