2014 (1) TMI 1502 - Commission - Indian Laws

Request for information - Right to information - Held that - Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act is the rule and exemptions under Section 8 the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself - public authority can claim exemption from disclosure only as per the Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In the present appeal before the Commission, the respondent has not claimed any exemption as per the RTI Act nor been able to explain how the information if revealed would attract any of the exemption as per the Act. In view of the above, the respondent is hereby directed to provide information on point Nos. 2 & 3 of the RTI application. With regards to point 5 it may be noted that it does not fall within the ambit of the definition of information as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act - Decided partly in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of RTI application queries related to Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
2. Claim of exemption from disclosure under RTI Act.
3. Compliance with directions of Central Information Commission.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information related to alleged protests by the Union Petroleum Ministry against the Additional Solicitor General appearing in a court case. The queries included requests for detailed information, correspondence, and documents regarding the protests. The Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas had initially refused to disclose the information, citing confidentiality and sensitivity. However, the Commission noted that the respondent did not claim any exemption under the RTI Act and failed to justify how disclosure would attract any exemption. As per the decision in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, the right to access information is fundamental, and exemptions must be strictly construed. Therefore, the Commission directed the respondent to provide information on specific points of the RTI application, except for one query that did not fall under the definition of "information" as per the Act.

2. The Commission emphasized that a public authority can only claim exemption from disclosure as per Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In this case, the respondent did not provide any valid grounds for withholding the information sought by the appellant. The Commission's decision was based on the principle that exemptions under Section 8 should not overshadow the fundamental right to access information. By not claiming any exemption and failing to demonstrate how disclosure would meet any exemption criteria, the respondent was directed to comply with the request for information within two weeks from the receipt of the order.

3. The Commission's order required the respondent to provide the requested information within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply with the directions within two weeks would result in non-compliance with the Commission's order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the directives issued by the Central Information Commission in response to RTI applications.