RTI applicant must disclose reasons for seeking information says Madras High Court

In a judgment that is likely to have far-reaching implications, the Madras High Court held that applications under the RTI act must disclose the reasons for which information has been sought. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices N Paul Vasanthakumar and K Ravichandrababu while hearing a challenge to the Central Information Commission direction to the High Court to provide certain information..In January last year, hearing an appeal filed by one B Bharathi, the CIC had directed the Madras High Court to provide details on the appointment of the High Court’s Registrar General, as well as the appointment of public prosecutors since 2006. At the same time, the CIC had also cautioned Bharathi against “flooding” the High Court with RTI applications. The CIC observed that,.Sending numerous complaints and representations about these grievances and then following those with RTI applications cannot be the way to redress such grievances. Even in the pursuit of information, brevity is the soul of wit; a few RTI applications seeking very pertinent and specific information can reveal more than several dozen of repetitive petitioning..It is this order that the Madras High Court’s PIO successfully challenged before the Madras High Court. Setting aside the CIC order, the Madras High Court held that Bharathi had failed to disclose adequate reasons behind seeking the information. The High Court held that the RTI Act does not provide an unfettered right to information, and that,.“A person who seeks information under the RTI Act, must show that the information sought for is either for his personal interest or for a public interest. Under both circumstances, the information seeker must disclose at least with bare minimum details as to what is the personal interest or the public interest, for which such information is sought for. If such details are either absent or not disclosed, such query cannot be construed as the one satisfying the requirement of the RTI Act.”.Continuing with this school of thought, the division bench also said that,.“If informations are to be furnished to a person, who does not have any reason or object behind seeking such informations, in our considered view, the intention of the Legislature is not to the effect that such informations are to be given like pamphlets to any person unmindful of the object behind seeking such information”.Understandably, the decision has come under heavy criticism by RTI activists with Prashant Bhushan deeming the order to be “illegal”. Bhushan also said that decisions were just a method of “preventing administrative transparency” in the judiciary..Bhushan’s criticism do carry a certain degree of legitimacy. Back in 2010 the Delhi High Court had ruled that the RTI Act is applicable to the Supreme Court as well. It was Bhushan who had argued the matter, representing RTI activist Subhash Agarwal..When challenged before the Supreme Court, this decision was stayed and there has been little progress in the case. Effectively, the administrative decisions of the Supreme Court (and by extension the High Courts) remains outside the ambit of the RTI Act..At the same time, there is also some truth to the observations made by the CIC itself, specifically with regard to the smooth functioning of public institutions. Due to the fact that PIOs are usually appointed on a de jure basis, replying to RTI applications is just one of the PIO’s many responsibilities. In fact, even the CIC had noted that Bharathi’s “flooding” of RTI applications could affect the functioning of the institution.