The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the difficulty in collating information cannot be used as a ground to deny information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The Court categorically stated, "The government also cannot deny information on the ground that it will take time to collate the information."

The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad asserted that a Public Authority cannot evade its responsibility to provide information simply because it is not readily available in one place or would take time to compile.

"The fact that the information might not be available at one place cannot be reason to deny such an information. Efforts have to be made by the Department to collate the information and then give it to the Respondent," the Court said.

The Court stressed that the primary objective of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency in the functioning of government departments, and this objective cannot be undermined by the State Government citing the voluminous nature of the information sought. "The object of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency in the functioning of the Departments and this cannot be thwarted by the State Government on the ground that voluminous information is being sought and, therefore, the information cannot be provided," it said.

These observations came in response to a plea filed by the Delhi Government challenging an Order issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The case stemmed from an RTI application filed by Probhjot Singh Dhillon, seeking details about the disciplinary action taken by the Delhi Government's Education Department against teachers conducting private tuitions in the national capital.

The CIC noted the lackadaisical approach of the Public Information Officer (PIO) in handling Dhillon's RTI application and directed the PIO of the Aided School Branch to furnish the requested information.

Rejecting the Delhi Government's plea, the Court affirmed that information concerning disciplinary proceedings against teachers involved in private tuitions should be made available to Dhillon, even if it requires collation from multiple sources. Highlighting the process for imposing major penalties on teachers in private unaided schools, the Court pointed out that such actions require approval from the Director of Education. Therefore, the Delhi Government possesses relevant information regarding disciplinary actions against teachers in both government and private schools.

"A perusal of the abovementioned Rules [Rules 118, 120(1)(d)(iv), and 121(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973] indicates that if a Private/unaided School intends to take a major penalty against a teacher then the approval of the Director of Education is necessary and without such an approval any action of major penalty cannot be imposed on the teacher. In view of the above, the Petitioner must have the information regarding the penalty taken against a teacher for taking private tuitions in both Government and private schools," the Court said.

The Bench observed, "....the disciplinary proceedings taken by the government and aided schools against teachers who take private tuitions can be made available to the respondent as the information would be available with the Department, though not at one place, and has to be collated. Insofar as the information regarding teachers of private unaided schools is concerned, Rules 118, 120(1)(d)(iv), and 121(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 stipulates that if a school intends to take a major penalty against a teacher then the approval of the Director of Education is necessary, and without such an approval any action of major penalty cannot be imposed on the teacher. Therefore, information related to teachers of private unaided schools can be collated from the records of major punishment imposed by such schools."

The Court reiterated that the lack of centralized information should not serve as a basis for denying access to such information. It emphasized the obligation of the Department to make efforts to compile the information and provide it to the RTI applicant.

Consequently, the Court directed the Delhi Government to furnish Dhillon with the requested information pertaining to cases where major penalties have been imposed on teachers for conducting private tuitions, both in government and private schools.

"In view of the above, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present Writ Petition with a direction to the Petitioner to provide the information sought for by the Respondent in respect of both Government and aided schools and in respect of private schools, the Petitioner is directed to provide information of all such cases where major penalty has been imposed on the teacher for taking private tuitions. Since time given by the CIC in the impugned order is over, it is open to the Petitioner to approach the CIC for extension of time," the Court ordered.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Mr. Prabhjot Singh Dhillon

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Yeeshu Jain (ASC), Jyoti Tyagi, Hitanshu Mishra

Respondent: Advocates Tanmaya Mehta, Krishna Gopal Abhay, Karmanya Singh Sareen, Sahib Singh Dhillon, Rinku

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Subramonium PrasadDelhi High CourtRight to Information Act 2005Delhi School Education Rules 1973

Sukriti Mishra