9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 345 - HC - FEMADemand - Penalty - Condonation of delay - The validity of section 24 read with Second Schedule to the Act has been assailed on the ground that right to information is a fundamental right and it has to be treated with sanctity and the bar created under the Act is contrary to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - Regard being had to the basic principles, which we have stated at the very inception, it is to be seen whether the provision under attack really offends the constitutional principles because of right to seek information under the Act in respect of certain institutions is excluded - As noticed below, Article 19(2) of the Constitution also carves out exception in the matters relating to interests of sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of the State - Article 19(1)(2), which deals with reasonable restriction, mentions a reasonable restriction which pertains to security of the State, integrity of India and public order - the legislature has taken care to see that matters relating to human right violation and corruption are not excluded because they are of paramount concern to any citizen and for the economic growth of the country - we perceive that the provision is not arbitrary and unreasonable to invite the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Petition is dismissed
Issues Involved
1. Constitutionality of Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Validity of the order dated 11th May, 2009, passed by the Central Information Commission. 3. Right to information as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 4. Allegations of arbitrariness and lack of guidance in Section 24 of the RTI Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Constitutionality of Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 24 and the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, arguing that it infringes upon the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court referred to several precedents, including R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd., Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, which establish a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of an enactment. The court emphasized that Section 24 excludes intelligence and security organizations from the purview of the RTI Act, except for information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The court held that this exclusion is reasonable and does not violate Article 19(1)(a) or Article 14 of the Constitution, as it pertains to the security and integrity of the state. 2. Validity of the order dated 11th May, 2009, passed by the Central Information Commission The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Central Information Commission, which dismissed their appeal for information on the grounds that the Directorate of Enforcement is exempt under Section 24 of the RTI Act. The Commission held that it is not within its jurisdiction to pronounce on the constitutionality of Section 24. The court upheld the Commission's order, stating that the exclusion of certain organizations under Section 24 is justified and does not warrant interference. 3. Right to Information as a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution The petitioner argued that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions. The court acknowledged the importance of the right to information in a democratic society but noted that this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, and public order. The court cited the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, which upheld reasonable restrictions on the right to information in the interest of state security. 4. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Lack of Guidance in Section 24 of the RTI Act The petitioner contended that Section 24 is arbitrary and lacks guidance, granting unfettered power to deny information. The court disagreed, stating that the provision is clear in its exclusion of intelligence and security organizations while ensuring that information related to corruption and human rights violations is not excluded. The court found that the legislature has provided adequate guidance and that the provision is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, thus not violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Conclusion The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutionality of Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and the validity of the Central Information Commission's order. The court held that the restrictions imposed by Section 24 are reasonable and necessary for the security and integrity of the state, and do not infringe upon the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.
|
