Madras High Court recalls ruling diluting RTI

CHENNAI.  The Madras High Court has ‘corrected’ its order last week that observed that an applicant seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, should state reasons for doing so and whether there is any public interest involved. The previous order had come under criticism from several quarters for its alleged potency to undermine the transparency law.

 

A division bench of justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and justice K Ravichandrabaabu on Tuesday suo motu took up the matter and corrected the error saying the general observations in the earlier order stating that an RTI application “should contain minimum details or reasons for which information is sought for” were made without noticing Section 6(2) of the Act that specifically provides that an applicant need not give any reason for any RTI plea.

 

“The general observations made in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said order is an error apparent on the fact of the record, contrary to the statutory provisions. The said error has been noticed by us after pronouncing the order on September 17, and in order to rectify the error in paragraphs 20 and 21, yesterday (Sept 22) we directed the registry to post this matter today (Sept 23) under ‘suo motu review’,” the two-page order said.

The court also noted that an information-seeking individual was not required to give any reason for seeking the details and their earlier order was contrary to the statutory provision.

 

Serious concerns raised by legal experts and RTI activists over the Madras HC’s observations. They said the order was against the letter and spirit of the pro-transparency legislation. RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal felt that the order would weaken the transparency law as it could be misused by the Public Information Officers todeny access to information.

 

In the corrected order, the bench further said that it was convinced that the general observations made in the order was against the existing provisions of the RTI Act and the same have to be removed. Financial Express