2010 (1) TMI 524 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to information - petitioner Archives was that they are only the custodian of records - not bound to provide any information to any one - petitioner cannot contend that the documents cannot be furnished without the concerned department s consent - other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources Held that - It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government - the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised - the writ petition will stand dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Right to Information Act by Archives Department

Analysis:
The petitioner, Deputy Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, challenged an order issued by the first respondent regarding providing information to a Managing Partner of a Real Estate firm. The petitioner argued that as per the Archival Policy Resolution, they were only custodians of records and not obligated to provide information. However, the first respondent held that the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) overrides any inconsistent laws. Section 22 of the RTI Act states that its provisions prevail over other laws. The Commission ruled that the Archives cannot refuse to furnish information unless covered by Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.

The petitioner contended that they are not the owners of the documents and cannot handle requests due to the large volume of records they maintain. They relied on Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for transferring requests to the concerned departments. However, the Commission can overrule objections if disclosure is in the public interest. The Archives, being a public authority under the RTI Act, cannot object to disclosing information over 20 years old as per Section 8(3). The Commission ensured that concerned departments are notified of objections.

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that administrative difficulties or resource constraints cannot impede citizens' right to information. The petitioner's objections regarding the volume of records and lack of human resources were deemed insufficient to deny access to information. The court emphasized that the right to information is paramount, and administrative challenges should be addressed internally. The petition lacked merit, and no costs were awarded. The decision upheld the importance of transparency and access to information under the RTI Act.