2009 (1) TMI 551 - Commission - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of information sought under RTI Act
- Interpretation of the term 'held' by the PIO
- Disclosure of information under Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act
- Applicability of RTI Act over other laws

Denial of information sought under RTI Act:
The appellant sought information regarding court records, but the PIO denied the request, stating that certified copies could be obtained under Section 76 of the Evidence Act. The First Appellate Authority upheld this decision, citing the appellant's entitlement under the Evidence Act, not the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the RTI Act does not debar information covered by the Evidence Act and that the RTI Act should prevail as the latest statute.

Interpretation of the term 'held' by the PIO:
The PIO contended that the term 'held' in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act means 'withholding and not giving.' However, the appellant argued that the document is a public record and should be provided. The Commission rejected the PIO's interpretation, stating that 'held' typically means to be in possession of and does not imply withholding. The PIO's argument that disclosure would constitute contempt of court was deemed baseless.

Disclosure of information under Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act:
The First Appellate Authority cited Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, stating that certain information cannot be supplied. However, the Commission clarified that the RTI Act prevails over conflicting laws unless specifically prohibited. As the PIO did not claim any exemption under the RTI Act, the information was deemed accessible to the appellant.

Applicability of RTI Act over other laws:
The Commission emphasized that if a public authority has a process for disclosing information, citizens have the right to choose between that process and the RTI Act. The existence of alternative methods does not restrict the citizen's fundamental right to information. The Commission ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and instructing the PIO to provide the complete information free of cost.

This judgment highlights the importance of the RTI Act in accessing information, clarifies the interpretation of terms within the Act, and establishes the precedence of the RTI Act over conflicting laws unless expressly prohibited.