29

Prem Lata, CPIO Trade Marks Registry, Delhi VS CIC

Posted on by Shreysi Singh

Issue:

Whether information disclosed suo-moto under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act,2005 (RTI Act) can be requested for under Section 6 of the RTI Act and if not, then, is, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) obliged to reject the request by stating that the information is suo motu and can be accessed from internet?

Observation of the Delhi High Court:

1.To hold, that having made information available to the public suo motu, public  authority is also to be burdened with dealing with request for the same information, would amount to a huge waste of resources of  the public authorities.

2.It will not advance the legislative intent in any way and may allow misuse of the RTI Act.

3.Provision of information under Section 6 of the Act is subject to payment of fees. It belies logic as to why the provisions of the RTI Act should be interpreted as conferring a right to seek information, subject to payment of cost when that information which is already available for free. This will also lead to undue enrichment to the public authority.

Held:

1.Information already made available suo moto by the public authority in discharge of obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act cannot be requested for under Section 6 of the RTI Act. P

2.Public authority is not required to provide Information already made available by it suo moto.

3.Since, the grounds specified under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, 2005 for rejection of an RTI Application do not specify the ground of ‘information having suo-moto made available for free by Public Authority’, CPIO is not required to reject the RTI Application giving the reason of the information having suo motu been made available.

How to dispose of such RTI applications:

Since, in view of the above High Court decision, the information already made available by a public authority suo moto is not required to be again provided to the RTI applicant and the CPIO cannot also reject the RTI application, the CPIO in its decision can (1) inform the location of the information (2) Give a link of the information.

Prem Lata, CPIO Trade Marks Registry, Delhi VS CIC, LPA 444/2012 & CM No.10451/2012 (for stay), CORAM:- HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW