2011 (12) TMI 2 - SC - Indian Laws

Right to information Act (RTI) - object and purpose of the Act and the evolving mosaic of jurisprudential thinking which virtually led to its enactment in 2005. - held that - Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not in the name of interpretation lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. Application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act for obtaining information from the State Information Officer relating to magisterial enquiries - the High Court held that under Section 18 of the Act the Commissioner has no power to direct the respondent to furnish the information and further held that such a power has already been conferred under Section 19(8) of the Act on the basis of an exercise under Section 19 only. The Division Bench further came to hold that the direction to furnish information is without jurisdiction and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the complaints in accordance with law. - Held that - . The procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure. A right of appeal is always a creature of statute. A right of appeal is a right of entering a superior forum for invoking its aid and interposition to correct errors of the inferior forum. It is a very valuable right. Therefore when the statute confers such a right of appeal that must be exercised by a person who is aggrieved by reason of refusal to be furnished with the information. In that view of the matter this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. - Petitioner directed to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information vide applications dated 9.2.2007 and 19.5.2007 within a period of four weeks

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act.
2. Differentiation between the procedures under Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act.
3. Retrospective application of notifications issued under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act:

The appeals were filed against the judgment of the High Court which held that the Information Commissioner does not have the power to direct the furnishing of information under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Commissioner's role under Section 18 is supervisory and does not extend to providing access to information. The Court emphasized that the only order the Commissioner can pass under Section 18 is related to penalties under Section 20, provided the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. The Court concluded that the remedy for a person denied information lies under Section 19, which provides a complete statutory mechanism for addressing such grievances.

2. Differentiation between the procedures under Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act:

The Supreme Court distinguished between the procedures under Sections 18 and 19, noting that they serve different purposes and provide different remedies. Section 18 deals with complaints and grants the Information Commission supervisory powers, while Section 19 provides an appellate procedure for those aggrieved by the denial of information. The Court highlighted that Section 19 includes several safeguards, such as the onus on the information officer to justify denial and a time-bound resolution process, which are absent in Section 18. The Court reiterated that the statutory procedure must be followed as laid down, and any deviation would render Section 19(8) redundant.

3. Retrospective application of notifications issued under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act:

The Court clarified that notifications issued under Section 24, which exempt certain organizations from the purview of the Act, cannot apply retrospectively. The right to information must be decided based on the law as it stood when the request was made. The Court emphasized that Section 24 does not have retrospective operation, and any subsequent notification cannot defeat a pending request for information. The Court directed that appeals filed within the specified time should be decided in accordance with Section 19 and as early as possible, preferably within three months.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the Information Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to direct the furnishing of information under Section 18. The Court emphasized the distinct procedures and purposes of Sections 18 and 19, and clarified that notifications under Section 24 cannot have retrospective effect. The appellants were directed to file appeals under Section 19 within four weeks, and the appellate authority was instructed to consider these appeals on merits without insisting on the period of limitation. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.