Search

GO

OPINIONCOMMENT

Published:October4,201401:39IST|Updated:October4,201401:42IST
October4,2014

Dismantlethewallsofsecrecy
MadabhushiSridhar
TheRTIActallowsforcitizens'accesstoinformationwithoutanyoneaskingforit.
PictureshowscitizensinKarnatakademandingtheimplementationoftheAct.Photo:
K.Gopinathan

TheHindu
TheRTIActallowsforcitizens'accesstoinformationwithoutanyoneaskingforit.PictureshowscitizensinKarnatakademandingthe
implementationoftheAct.Photo:K.Gopinathan
RecentordersoftheMadrasHighCourthaveredefinedtheRTIActreducingitsscope,expandingitsrestrictionsandcreatingnew
groundsfordenialofinformation
TheMadrasHighCourtrecentlytookasignificantsteptorectifyitsownorderinacasedatedSeptember17byrestoringSection6(2)ofthe
RighttoInformation(RTI)Act,2005,tosay:Anapplicantmakingarequestforinformationshallnotberequiredtogiveanyreasonfor
requestingtheinformationoranyotherpersonaldetailsexceptthosethatmaybenecessaryforcontactinghim.However,inspiteofthe
courtdeletingtwoparagraphsfromitsearlierjudgmentinThePublicInformationOfficer,theRegistrar(Administration),HighCourt
Madrasv.TheCentralInformationCommissioner&B.Bharathicase,contradictionsremaintothespiritoftheRTIActaslaw.
TheRTIActallowsforcitizensaccesstoinformationwithoutanyoneaskingforit.Section4oftheActstatesthatinformationoughttobe
providedbypublicauthoritiessuomotutothepublicatregularintervalsthroughvariousmeansofcommunications,includinginternet,so
thatthepublichaveminimumresorttotheuseofthisAct.Further,informationwhichisnotexemptedandcertaininformationwhich,evenif
exempted,canbeprovidediflargerpublicinterestisshown.Onlywithreferencetothisthattheidentityoftheindividualandthereasonsfor
seekinginformationbecomenecessarytoascertainwhetheranylargerpublicinterestisinvolved.Itiswithregardtothissectionthatthe
MadrasHighCourtbenchsrecentassertionfurnishingofthoseinformationwillhindertheregular,smoothandproperfunctioningofthe
institution[and]cannotbegivenunnecessarilywarrantingscrupulouslitigationsrequiresfurtherrectification.Thecourtsassertionisin
directcontradictionwiththepreambleoftheRTIActwhichstatesthattheRTIisanActtoprovideforsettingoutthepracticalregimeof
righttoinformation.
Besidesthis,severalwallsofsecrecyhavebeenerectedaroundaccesstoinformationbythreedivisionbenchordersoftheMadrasHighCourt
whichrequireexamining.
Noenforceablelegalright
InRegistrarGeneralv.K.Elango,thecourtsaid:Furtherweareofconsideredviewthattheapplicanthasnolocusstanditoseekdetails
soughtbyhim.WhatthecourtsorderimpliesisthataninformationseekerundertheRTIdoesnothavetherighttobringanaction,tobe
heardincourt,ortoaddressthecourtonamatterbeforeit.TheSeptember17orderreiteratedthispointbyassertingthattheapplicanthas
noenforceablelegalright.Ifthisishowthelawisinterpreted,thenthecitizensrighttoinformationalmoststandsabolished.
BywayofjudicialactivismaPILwascreatedearliertoreducetherigouroftheruleoflocusstandi.Acommonmanwillnotbeinapositionto
understandwhyaHighCourtshouldreintroducethisruleinthecontextofRTI.Byrelaxinglocusstandi,thepreviousPILalleviatedthe

sufferingsoftheaggrievedpartywhocouldnotapproachcourts.IntherectificationorderoftheMadrasHighCourt,onlytwoparagraphs
opposingSection6(2)wereremoved,butthewallofsecrecythroughinvocationoftheruleoflocusstandiremains.
Nofilenotings
InTheRegistrarGeneralv.K.Elangojudgment,thecourtsays:Notings,jottings,administrativeletters,intricateinternaldiscussions,
deliberationsetc.oftheHighCourtcannotbebroughtunderSection2(j)oftheRTI.TheRTIActandseveraljudgementsupheldfilenotings
aspartofinformationthatcouldbelegitimatelyaccessed.IntheSeptember17order,thedivisionBenchsaid:Itwillhaveanadverseimpact
ontheregular,normalandserenefunctioningoftheHighCourtofficeontheadministrativeside.Para22containingapprovalofthisorder
hasbeendeleted.ButtheordersintheElangoandRegistrarGeneralHighCourtofMadrasv.R.M.Subramaniancases(2013)remain.
Thus,publicauthoritiesmayfindanewgroundtostonewallRTIquestionssayingtheywillaffecttheirserenefunctioning.
Referringtothecomplaintthatfilenotingswerenotgiven,theSeptember17ordersaysthatsuchinformationcannotbedeniedasheldinthe
Elangocase.Thisparagraphhasnotbeendeleted.Thusthewallofnofilenotingshasbeenresurrected.InPara25,thejudgmentsays:
Furnishingofthoseinformationwillcertainlyimpedeandhindertheregular,smoothandproperfunctioningoftheinstitution,
unnecessarilywarrantingscrupulouslitigation.Inthispara,wheretheBenchhasinsistedonrevealingreasonsandhasraisedtheissueof
locusstandioftherespondentinseekinginformation,therectificationeffecthastobedoubted.
PrivacyofHighCourt
IntheElangocasetheHighCourtsays:Informationshouldbedeniedforthepurposeofmaintainingutmostconfidentialityandsecrecyof
thedelicatefunctioningoftheinternalmattersofHighCourts.Usageofundefinedexpressionssuchasdelicatefunctioning,utmost
confidentiality,secrecy,anddelicatefunctioningintheseorderswillensurethattherighttoaccessinformationfurthershrinks.
Thematterissubjudiceandispendingbeforethecourt.AccordingtoSection8(1)(b),onlywhenthereisaspecificprohibitionbythecourt
caninformationbedenied.Subjudicewasnotagroundfordenialyet,Para27ofthejudgmentstatesthatitis.
Thesecrecyandprivacyoftheinternalworkingprocessmaygetjeopardised.Besides,thefurnishingofthesaidinformationwouldresultin
theinvasionofprivacyoftheindividualsconcerned.Privacyisanintegralpartoftherighttolifeofpersonsasexplainedbythejudiciary.Can
institutionsthenclaimprivacy?
TheChiefJusticeoftheHighCourtcanbeprovidedwithenoughfreedomandinbuiltsafeguardsinexercisinghisdiscretionarypowerseither
tofurnishtheinformationornotpartwithit(Para94ofRegistrarGeneralHighCourtofMadrasv.R.M.Subramanian,2013).Thismeans
theofficeoftheChiefJusticeofHighCourtistotallyexempted,whichwasnottheintentionofthelegislation.Ifthe2013orderoperatesas
law,thequestioncanjudiciarylegislateagainstParliamentremains.
Thecourtswillalwaystrytofindoutwhethertheapplicanthassoughttheinformationwithbonafideintentionandwhethersuch
informationhasanyrelevanceforhisrequest.Ifitisso,eachPIOwilldecidethefateoftheRTIbasedonhisunderstandingofrelevance
anotherironwallindeed.
TheSeptember17orderusedexpressionslikenotinapositiontounderstand(Para29)andcannotbefurnished.Itsays:[The]
furnishingofinformationwithregardtotheRegistrarGeneralwhichhasbeenactedbytheHonourableChiefJusticeofMadrasHighCourt
cannotbebroughtunderthepurviewofSection2(j)oftheRTI,assuchinformationpertainstotheinternalintricatefunctioning/
administrationoftheHighCourt.Italsosays:PostingofRegistrarGeneralby[the]ChiefJusticeisinexerciseofpowersunderArticle229of
theConstitutionand[the]appellantoranyperson,includingotherjudges,hasnosay.Henceinformationaboutitcannotbegiven.This
provesthatthereisawallofsecrecybuiltaroundtheprocessofappointmentoftheRegistrarGeneraltheSupremeCourtontheotherhand
hadheldthatcorrespondenceonappointmentofjudgesshouldbedisclosed.
Finally,Para30oftheordersaysRTIcannotbethewaytoredressgrievance.Thereisnosuchprohibitioninthelaw.Ifthemechanismof
redressalofgrievanceislacking,thecitizenwillafilecomplaintandthenanRTItoknowitsstatus.Whyshouldhenotbeinformedabout
actiononcomplaint?
ThethreeordershaveredefinedtheRTIActreducingitsscope,expandingitsrestrictions,creatingnewgroundsfordenialofinformation
andclaimingtotalexemptiontoitsadministration.Theyneedtobereviewedsothatthewallsofsecrecycanbedemolished.
(MadabhushiSridharisCentralInformationCommissioner.)
Printableversion|Aug30,201510:13:58AM|http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/oped/rtiactdismantlethewallsof
secrecy/article6469316.ece
TheHindu