INFORMATION RELATING TO SUB-JUDICE MATTER UNDER
RTI ACT
Of late, PIOs are denying information sought under
RTI Act with the reason that matter is sub-judice i.e. matter is pending with a
court of law or tribunal or consumer forum/commission etc.
RTI Act no where permits refusal of information
just because subject of information is sub-judice. Under section 8.1.b only
that information, which has been expressly forbidden to be published by
any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt
of court, has been exempted from disclosure. But PIOs extend to all information
relating to court cases out of misinterpretation or ignorance or malice just to
dodge information.
Following decisions of Central Information
Commission are relevant:
1. Decision No.456/IC(A)/2006 F.
No.CIC/MA/A/2006/0694 dated
“There are
no provisions in the RTI Act to reject an application for information merely on
the ground that the matter is sub-judice. In the instant case, there is,
however, no evidence to indicate that exemption from disclosure of information
u/s 8(1)(b) of the Act has been sought by the CPIO. Therefore, the denial of
information by the CPIO and appellate authority on ground of the matter being
sub-judice is unjustified.”
2. CIC/SM/A/2008/000106 dated
“………..The denial of information on the ground that the matter had been
pending before the DRT is not supported by any of the provisions of the Right
to Information (RTI) Act. Merely, because a matter has been pending before a
Court or Tribunal, it cannot be denied to a citizen………”
3. CIC/SM/A/2012/000067 dated
[Against CPIO, High Court of Calcutta, Appellate Side]
“In respect of the reply given by the CPIO, we have to say
that no information can be denied merely on the ground that the matter is
subjudice. There is no provision in the Right to Information (RTI) Act which
exempts any information from disclosure only on this ground. Information can be
denied only under the exemption provisions of the RTI Act. We hope the CPIO
will keep this in mind in future.”
4. CIC/SM/A/2010/000966 dated
“After carefully considering the facts of the case, we do not
find either the decision of the CPIO or the Appellate Authority in conformity
with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. There is nothing in
that Act which prevents
disclosure
of information merely on the ground that a related matter is pending
before a court of law…………….”
5. CIC/LS/A/2009/000937 dated
“After hearing the Respondents and on perusal of the relevant
documents on file and keeping in view the written submissions the Commission
first of all make it clear that the matter being sub-judice is not ground to
withhold the requisite information under the RTI Act, unless the desired
information has been expressly
forbidden to be published by any court of Law or Tribunal or
the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court, in terms of the
Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI
Act. In the present case the Respondents have not produced
any order of the Court which has expressly forbidden the disclosure of the
desired information. After making the legal position clear about the matter
being sub-judice, the impugned points of the RTI application are discussed and
decision on the point is
given below…..”
Note:
I would suggest that this note may be attached to RTI
application as an annexure, so that despite this information if PIO supported
by FAA ventures to deny information for it being sub-judice, they will have
tough time in convincing Information Commissioner that both acted in good faith
and without malafide during hearing of second appeal or complaint. Under section 19.5 of RTI Act the onus to justify
replies rests with PIO. Under section
20.1 the burden of proving that PIO acted reasonably and diligently is enjoined
on the PIO.
Authored by: J. P. Shah jpshah50@yahoo.co.in
15112012
No comments:
Post a Comment