Moneylife - Linkedin Moneylife - Facebook Moneylife - Twitter Moneylife - Youtube Moneylife Rss feed
close

Moneylife » Life » RTI Judgement Series » RTI Judgement Series: You can get information on sub-judice matters under RTI

RTI Judgement Series: You can get information on sub-judice matters under RTI

Moneylife Digital Team | 29/11/2012 05:39 PM | 

Under the RTI Act, disclosing information on matters which are sub-judice does not constitute contempt of court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. This is the fourth in a series of important judgements given by Shailesh Gandhi, former CIC, that can be used or quoted in an RTI application 

 
The public information officer (PIO) cannot deny information on matters which are sub-judice by citing Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, unless there is a specific order forbidding the disclosure, ruled the Central Information Commission. While giving this important judgement, Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner, also disagreed with a previous decision of the Commission.
 
“The appellate authority had claimed exemption under Section 8 (1)(e), but the PIO has given no reason to justify how this can apply. The only exemption of Section 8 (1) which might remotely apply is Section 8 (1)(b) which states, ‘information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;’ can be denied. This clause does not cover sub-judice matters, and unless an exemption is specifically mentioned, information cannot be denied,” the Commission said in its order issued on 18 February 2009.
 
Delhi resident Ashwani Kumar Goel sought information regarding the creation of the posts of additional senior public prosecutors, vacancies and their ad-hoc promotions and subsequent regularizations during the period 1994 to 2005, from the government of NCT of Delhi. The PIO denied the information saying that the matter is sub-judice in the Delhi High Court.
 
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), while noting that the applicant (Mr Goel) is seeking information for use in the court case to promote his professional and private interests, asked him to obtain the information from Delhi High Court, since the matter was sub-judice. “Further, it was also informed that no large public interest is served from the information as asked by the appellant and can be denied under section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act,” the FAA said in its order.
 
Dissatisfied with the answers from both the PIO and the FAA, Mr Goel then approached the CIC. During the hearing on 18 February 2009, representative of the PIO cited an earlier decision (No. CIC/MA/A/2005/00001) given by the CIC on 14 March 2006. The CIC decision states that “The matter is sub-judice. The appellate authority has correctly advised that information in question could be obtained through the court, which is examining the matter.”
 
After hearing both the sides, Mr Gandhi, in an order said, “I respectfully have to disagree with the earlier decision cited by the appellant since it is per incuriam. This Commission rules that a matter being subjudice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the Right to Information Act.” 
 
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
 
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00838/1777
 
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00838/
 
Appellant                                :         Ashwani Kumar Goel,
                                                                  G-6, Model Town-III,
                                                                  Delhi-110009.
         
Respondent 1                           :      RN Sharma,
                                                                  Joint Secretary (Home) & PIO,
                                                                  Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
                                                                  Office of the Registrar Coop. Societies,
                                                                  Parliament Street, New Delhi.
 

Post Comment

More in Moneylife

TAX Torture +3529 views

TODAY'S TOP STORIES

Post your Comment


Alert me when new comment is posted on this article
 Please read our Moderation Policy and Terms of Use before posting


VIDEOS

Moneylife Foundation launches Legal Helpline and Resource Centre

LATEST COMMENT

<MORE

RTI Judgement Series: Provide information on MTM position of banks Moneylife Digital Team

RTI Judgement Series: PIO of urban dept asked to give corrected certificate Moneylife Digital Team

Comment

5 Comments
praveen sakhuja

praveen sakhuja 1 year ago

What Ghandi says is correct BUT who will correct the other IC's. Those support blindly the respondents indirectly Public Authorities. CAN ANY ONE PROVIDE SOLUTION TO IT kindly inform giftpal@bol.net.in

Reply »Link » Report abuse
X
Ashok Das

Ashok Das 1 year ago in reply to praveen sakhuja

I respectfully disagree to your generalized view. Opinion on who is correct may vary. Declaring that all other CICs are biased compared to Gandhi is not a good idea. It shows bias. Shri Shailesh Gandhi is known to have a particular bias too. Balance is very very important in delivering justice. Like you have rightly said, a quick and good solution is still pending for ordinary citizens. At least we have RTI now, thanks to several people including Shailesh Gandhi. Lets hope we are able to make it better and better with time. Thanks.

Reply» Link » Report abuse
X
praveen sakhuja

praveen sakhuja 1 year ago

2nd - My experience says it is IC who do not take care of the decision/order of the colleague in a right spirit. those try to shield the respondents of their choice with giving a twist to the past decision/order with new mythology. IC-SS is glaring example to it.

Reply »Link » Report abuse
X
praveen sakhuja

praveen sakhuja 1 year ago

It is the fate of the applicant as to which IC's is dealing with the appeal. Ic's has full discretion to decide fate of the applicant. he/she may even reverse his observations while dictating the decision/order delivered during hearing proceedings,

Reply »Link » Report abuse
X
Ashok Das

Ashok Das 1 year ago

Respected Sir, This is quite confusing. Can someone help understand this? One CIC order says that “The matter is sub-judice. The appellate authority has correctly advised that information in question could be obtained through the court, which is examining the matter.” and another CIC order states that "This Commission rules that a matter being subjudice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the Right to Information Act.” How is the confusion to be cleared as to what is correct? Who decides? Thank you.

Reply »Link » Report abuse
X
Daily Newsletter

1,00,000 Readers

Follow Moneylife
DNL facebook icon DNL linked in icon DNL twitter icon DNL youtube icon DNL rss icon
Moneylife Magazine

What's your say?

Who is responsible for missing voter names from the list?
Election Commission
Voter
Politicians
Don't Know
 
Enter Code : secure code
    change code
VOTE

What you said

With the Supreme Court ruling, do you think the govt should scrap its Aadhaar project?

Thanks for casting your votes! View Previous Polls