Interpretation of “information” under Section 2(f) and “right to information” Section 2(j) and Section 3 of The Right to Information Act,2005:- -
* The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another- Vs. -Aditya
Bandopadhyay and Ors.
(2011) 8 SCC 497 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
as under:-
“63. At this juncture, it
is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act
provides access to all information that is available and existing. This
is clear from a combined reading
of Section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to
information' under clauses(f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public
authority has any information in
the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant
may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act.
But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public
authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under
any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not
cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-
available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority
is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences
and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or
`opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or
`advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition
of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only
refers to such material
available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities
have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to
the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any
obligation under the RTI Act.”
-
* “67. Indiscriminate and impractical
demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry
information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the
functioning of public
authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it
will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive
getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing
information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a
tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the
peace, tranquility and The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the
pressure
of the authorities under the RTI
Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising
`information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties”
-
* Similarly, Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in In case of Poorna Prajna Public School - Vs. - Central
Information Commission & Ors. in WP(C). No. 7265/2018 decided on
25.09.2018, whereby this Court has held as under:-
-
“8. Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or
material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f)
expands the definition to include
details or material which can be
accessed under any other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously.
The term “held by or under the control of
any public authority” in Section
2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in
harmony with the definition of the term “information” as defined in Section
2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be
read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term
“information” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an
interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or
superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which
can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time
being in force. Therefore, if a
public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a
private body, under any other law, it is “information” as defined
in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The term “held by the or under the control of the public authority” used in
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public
authority is entitled to access
under any other law from a private body. A private body need not be a public
authority and the said term “private body” has been used to
distinguish and in
contradistinction to the term “public authority” as defined in Section 2(h) of
the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is entitled to access,
under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f)
of the RTI Act and has to be furnished.”
Thus, it is settled rule that an
interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or
superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2 (f) of the
RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body
which can be assessed by public authority under any law for the time being
inforce. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access
information from a private body, under any other law,
it is “information‟ as defined
in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Thus, it is obligation on the public authority
to get the information from the private body and furnish the same to the applicant”
-
No comments:
Post a Comment