Bulkiness Of Information Sought Is Not A Ground For Exemption U/S 8 RTI Act: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court observed that bulkiness of information sought is not a ground for exemption under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Court said that denial of information by citing that the information sought was bulky would add one more exemption under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which provides exemption from disclosure of information.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade challenging the Order of the Central Information Commissioner directing it to provide complete and categorical information to the Respondent as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The bench of Justice Subranonium Prasad observed, “Section 8 of the RTI mandates the exemption from disclosure of information. The information sought by the Respondent herein does not fall in any of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The only reason that has been given in the Writ Petition for not providing the information sought by the Respondent is that the information is bulky and it is not possible for the authorities to provide the information as sought for by the Respondent. If this Court accepts the contentions raised in the present Writ Petition, it will amount to adding one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act. “
Advocate Ginny J. Rautray appeared for the Appellant.
Brief Facts-
Petitioner, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, established by the Government of India, faced a legal challenge over RTI requests from former employee Kamal Jit Chibber. Chibber filed multiple RTI applications seeking extensive information, leading to disputes with the institute. Despite orders for record inspection, Chibber pursued legal action, resulting in a directive by the Central Information Commissioner for the institute to provide detailed information according to the RTI Act.
According to the Court, the fact that Mr Chibber was permitted to inspect the documents by the Ld. CIC does not mean that he was not entitled to the information against his RTI Application and the information cannot be provided to him.
The Court noted that it was not the case of the Petitioner that the information sought by the Respondent would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or that the information sought is expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court or that it would amount to a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State legislature or that the information sought for by the Respondent includes commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.
Accordingly, the Court refused to interfere with the order of the CIC.
Finally, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Indian Institute of Foreign Trade v. Kamal Jit Chibber (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3307)
Appearance:
Adv. Ginny J. Rautra and Adv. Navdeep Singh