RIGHT TO INFORMATION (r2i)

Brief facts and procedural history:

•  An RTI activist named Jayantilal Mistry from Gujarat way back in 2010 had sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 from the RBI about a Gujarat-based co-operative bank.

•  The information pertained to the annual inspection reports prepared by the RBI which had not been put into the public domain. Mistry filed an application under the RTI Act in October, 2010 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the RBI.

•  The RBI, however, did not provide the requested details. The information seeker then filed an appeal before the designated First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the RBI.

•  On 30th March, 2011, the FAA disposed of the appeal by upholding the order of the CPIO. The aggrieved Mistry filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi.

•  The CIC in its judgment dated 1st November, 2011 directed the RBI to provide information before 30th November, 2011.

•  Aggrieved by the decision of the CIC, the RBI filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court for quashing of the CIC’s judgment. The High Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the CIC’s order.

•  The matter was finally challenged before the Supreme Court of India.

•  The Supreme Court in its 2015 judgment on the applicability of RTI has made a detailed reference to section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which defines ‘information’. The RBI collects inspection reports from various banks. Since these reports fall within the definition of ‘information’, the same must be provided to citizens. Ideally, the RBI should make these reports public through its website.

•  A joint plea / recall petition was filed by the Central Government and ten banks seeking a recall of the 2015 judgment.

Issues before the Court:

•  Whether an application can be filed to recall the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court?

Ratio decidendi:

•  The dispute relates to information to be provided by the RBI under the RTI Act. Though the information pertained to banks, it was the decision of the RBI which was in challenge and decided by this Court.

•  No effort was made by any of the applicants in the Miscellaneous Applications to get themselves impleaded when the transferred cases were being heard by this Court. The applications styled as recall are essentially applications for review.

•  The nomenclature given to an application is of absolutely no consequence; what is of importance is the substance of the application – M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India.

•  A close scrutiny of the applications for recall makes it clear that in substance the applicants are seeking a review of the judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015).

Decision:

•  The Court was of the opinion that these applications were not maintainable. It made it clear that it is not dealing with any of the submissions made on the correctness of the judgment of this Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015).

•  The dismissal of the applications shall not prevent the applicants from pursuing other remedies available to them in law. All the Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed.

PART B | HIGHLIGHTS OF CIC ANNUAL REPORT, 2019-20

•  Total number of Public Authorities: 2,193

•  Total number of Public Authorities who have submitted all the four quarterly returns: 2,131

•  Total number of Public Authorities who have not submitted all the four quarterly returns: 62 (the defaulters include public authorities of four Union Territories and 21 Ministries)

•  Opening balance of RTI requests received by Public Authorities (as on 1st April of the reporting year): 3,10,110

•  Total number of RTI requests received during the reporting year: 13,74,315

•  Total number of RTI requests including opening balance: 16,84,425

•  Total number of RTI requests transferred to other Public Authorities u/s 6(3): 1,82,988

•  Total number of first appeals received: 1,52,354

•  Total number of first appeals disposed: 96,812

•  Total number of RTI requests rejected by Public Authorities: 58,634

•  Total number of cases where disciplinary action has been initiated against an officer in respect of administration of the RTI Act: 23

•  Total amount collected by Public Authorities (in INR): 93,08,534

•  Total number of designated CAPIOs: 60,432

•  Total number of designated CPIOs: 21,756

•  Total number of designated FAAs: 8,923

•  Number of second appeals / complaints registered during reporting year: 22,243

•  Number of second appeals / complaints disposed during reporting year: 16,720

•  Number of second appeals / complaints pending for disposal as on 1st April of reporting year: 35,178

•  One out of every three RTIs is rejected using section 8 (1)2.

PART C | INFORMATION ON AND AROUND

•  Two bribery and disproportionate assets complaints had been received against Sachin Waze but no inquiry was going on against him till March, 2021

The Anti-Corruption Bureau of Maharashtra Police has sent a proposal to the Home Department for an open inquiry against allegations of corruption and disproportionate assets against suspended and jailed Assistant Police Inspector Sachin Waze. A Right to Information (RTI) query has separately revealed that the ACB ignored a complaint alleging bribery and disproportionate assets against Waze last year, soon after he was reinstated in the police force3.

•  Orissa High Court refuses to grant interim stay on OIC order

OIC had issued the order on 9th July 9, 2020 on a complaint for bringing OOA under the ambit of RTI to ensure greater transparency and accountability in its operations. While issuing the order, OIC had directed OOA to comply with the provisions of the Act within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The OOA operates and maintains the Barabati Stadium in Cuttack which had come up on land given by the Government under a long-term lease for development of sports in Odisha. OOA is affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) which has already subjected itself to the provisions of RTI in compliance with the order passed by the High Court of Delhi in some writ petitions in 20104.

•  28,000 cases lodged under section 188 of IPC pending with Pune Police

Section 188 of the IPC states that any person who disobeys an order given by a public servant can be imprisoned for up to one month. Even though in 2020 the then State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh had announced that the Government would withdraw cases against people booked for violating Covid lockdown norms, yet the pending cases are in huge numbers5.

_______________________________________________________
1    https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/rbi-v-jayantilal-n-mistry-2021-392582.pdf
2    https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reports/CIC%20Annual%20Report%202019-20%20-%20English.pdf
3    https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/anti-corruption-bureau-sends-proposal-to-home-dept-for-open-inquiry-against-waze-7295985/
4    https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2021/may/22/orissa-high-court-refuses-to-grant-interim-stay-on-oic-order-2306012.html
5    https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/28000-cases-lodged-under-section-188-of-ipc-pending-with-pune-police-101621605589107.html