In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed citizens’ right to information under the RTI Act, ruling that authorities cannot deny requests solely on the basis of information volume. Justice Subramonium Prasad’s judgment emphasized that denying information due to its bulkiness would effectively create an unwarranted exemption under the RTI Act, underscoring the importance of transparency and accountability in governance. The ruling comes amidst efforts to ensure public access to information without unjustifiable impediments, setting a crucial precedent for open government practices in India.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that public authorities cannot refuse information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) simply because it is voluminous. Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted that denying information based solely on its bulkiness would effectively introduce an additional exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
The court’s observation came in response to a petition filed by the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), challenging an order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed IIFT to provide comprehensive and categorical information to Kamal Jit Chibber, an RTI applicant.
The CIC had issued two orders in December 2015 and January 2016, directing IIFT to permit Chibber to inspect records and subsequently provide specific information on multiple points raised by him.
IIFT contended that Chibber’s requests were burdensome due to their volume, with each of his 60 RTI applications containing 20-30 questions, requiring substantial resources to answer.
Rejecting IIFT’s arguments, the High Court noted that the information sought did not fall under any exemptions listed in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The court clarified that the RTI Act does not permit denial of information solely on the basis of bulkiness, highlighting that this rationale would unjustly expand the Act’s exemptions.
The court upheld the CIC’s order and dismissed IIFT’s petition, emphasizing that Chibber’s requests did not pose any of the specific risks outlined in Section 8 of the RTI Act, such as compromising national security or infringing on legal privileges.
Advocates Ginny J Rautray and Navdeep Singh represented IIFT, while Kamal Jit Chibber appeared in person during the proceedings.
