9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner (RPSC) is obligated to provide information under the RTI Act. 2. Whether the information sought falls under the exemption u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. 3. Compliance with S.22 of the RTI Act regarding overriding effect over regulations of the Public Service Commission. 4. Examination of the scope of the right to information and public authority obligations under the RTI Act. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Obligation to Provide Information under RTI Act The petitioner (RPSC), being a constitutional functionary and public authority u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, is obligated to furnish the information requested by respondent-1 as directed by the Chief Information Commissioner's order dated 13/06/2008. Despite the petitioner's delay of four months in filing the writ petition and lack of interim protection by the Court, the petitioner did not comply with the order to provide the information within 21 days. Issue 2: Exemption u/s 8(1)(d) of RTI Act The petitioner claimed exemption from disclosing certain information u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, arguing that the information sought by respondent-1 pertains to third parties and is confidential. However, the Chief Information Commissioner observed that there is no legal bar to providing the information sought under S.No.2, 3, and 5, and that S.22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect over any conflicting rules or regulations of the Public Service Commission. The court held that the exemption claimed u/s 8(1)(d) does not apply in this case. Issue 3: Overriding Effect of S.22 of RTI Act The court emphasized that S.22 of the RTI Act overrides any conflicting regulations of the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that their regulations restrict them from disclosing the information is invalid unless the information is specifically exempted under S.8 of the RTI Act. Issue 4: Scope of Right to Information and Public Authority Obligations The court referred to the Apex Court's judgments in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and ICAI Vs. Shaunak H. Satya, which clarified that public authorities must disclose information unless it falls under the exempted categories in S.8 of the RTI Act. The court reiterated that public authorities must change their mindset to align with the transparency and accountability objectives of the RTI Act. The petitioner's reliance on the judgment in RPSC Vs. Miss Pooja Meena was deemed unhelpful as the facts differed. Conclusion: The court found no manifest error in the order of the Chief Information Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to provide the requested information within fifteen days. The court underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in public authorities as envisioned by the RTI Act.
|
