Essential Elements: RTI Orders’ Mandatory Contents by High Court

Essential Elements: RTI Orders’ Mandatory Contents by High Court

Essential Elements: RTI Orders’ Mandatory Contents by High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has lately voiced their disapproval of the cryptic and non-speaking nature of certain decisions issued by agencies in accordance with the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). State of Punjab and others v. Rajwinder Singh and Others

Justice Vikas Bahl pointed out that such ambiguous instructions went against the mission of the RTI Act as well as a number of different judgements from the Supreme Court and the High Court.

“This Court has found that in a large number of cases,

the authorities including the first Appellate Authority…and the second Appellate Authority…under the Act, have been passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgements passed by the Honourable Supreme Court and various High Courts and also in violation of the mandate of the Act of 2005,” the order stated. The Act of 2005 mandated that all orders must be clear and understandable.

Following that, the judge went on to explain that the following aspects must be clearly specified by the first and second appellate authorities under the RTI Act while granting orders releasing or rejecting to release information:

The topics on which the applicant requests information in accordance with the application that he or she has submitted in accordance with the RTI Act;

The response, in point form, to the information that was requested;

A definitive answer to the question of whether or not any of the information requested on any of the points has been delivered, as well as, if it has been supplied, the date on which it has been supplied;

In the event that the authorities take the position that certain information will not be provided, either due to restrictions imposed by the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) or for some other reason, that position ought to be documented, as ought to the conclusion about the parties’ respective representations;

Any additional observations that the authority believes should be documented in light of the facts and circumstances of the case should be written down.

It has been ordered that copies of this judgement be distributed to the RTI authorities in the states of Punjab and Haryana, as well as to the advisor to the administrator of Chandigarh.

The judgement was handed down by the High Court after it partially granted a petition that had been submitted by one Rajwinder Singh, who was upset by an order that had been issued by the State Information Commission (SIC), Punjab.

After determining that the original order had been issued without documenting reasons, the High Court went on to request that the SIC conduct a new review of the RTI appeal.

“The order ought to have been self-explanatory, and the justifications supplied in support of it shouldn’t have been pre-written answers to standard questions. “The same has not been done in this case, and the order that was passed is cryptic and non-speaking,” remarked Justice Bahl.

It was highlighted by the Court that the SIC is a quasi-judicial entity that is obligated to issue orders that are supported by reasons. The court emphasised that it has not reached a conclusion about the merits of the complaint before remanding the matter to the RTI authority for further consideration.

Amandeep Singh Saini, an advocate, made a court appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Rohit Bansal, who is Senior Deputy Advocate General of Punjab, represented the state authorities during the hearing.