In the case of Indian Institute of Foreign Trade v. Kamal Jit Chibber, the Delhi High Court upheld that authorities cannot refuse information requests under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) simply because the information is bulky. Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized that accepting such a justification would effectively introduce additional exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
The court stated, “The information sought by the Respondent [RTI Applicant] herein does not fall in any of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The only reason that has been given in the Writ Petition for not providing the information sought by the Respondent is that the information is bulky and it is not possible for the authorities to provide the information as sought for by the Respondent. If this Court accepts the contentions raised in the present Writ Petition, it will amount to adding one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.”
Challenging Bulkiness: The Case at Hand
The Court’s remark came during the dismissal of a petition filed by the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), contesting a Central Information Commission (CIC) directive to furnish comprehensive and precise information requested by Kamal Jit Chibber. The CIC issued two orders, dated December 25, 2015, and January 25, 2016, respectively. While the first order instructed IIFT to permit Chibber to examine the records, the subsequent January 2016 directive mandated the Institute to furnish specific information addressing all 27 queries raised by him.
Court’s Verdict: Institute’s Argument
IIFT informed the CIC that Chibber has been consistently submitting numerous repetitive RTIs demanding extensive documentation. They stated to the High Court that Chibber, a former Institute employee, has lodged over 60 RTI requests, each comprising 20-30 inquiries, necessitating substantial resources for responses. The Institute argued that the information Chibber sought was bulky and, hence exempted from disclosure under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act due to the significant resource allocation required.
Court’s Verdict: Rejecting Bulkiness as a Justification
However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the information requested did not fall under any exemptions outlined in Section 8 of the RTI Act. Justice Subramonium Prasad warned against accepting bulkiness as a reason for denial, asserting that it would effectively introduce an additional exemption under Section 8, contrary to the Act’s spirit.
Upholding Transparency and Accountability
The ruling underscored the core value of transparency in governance and the pivotal role of the RTI Act in upholding accountability. It emphasized that refusing access to information solely due to its volume would compromise the essence of the RTI Act and impede progress toward transparency.
The court stated, “It is not the case of the Petitioner that the information sought by the Respondent would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or that the information sought is expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court or that it would amount to a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State legislature or that the information sought for by the Respondent includes commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.”
CONCLUSION
The Court highlighted that the information sought by Chibber did not meet any criteria for exemption under the RTI Act. It emphasized that the Institute failed to provide evidence supporting its contention, marking a significant victory for transparency and accountability in public institutions. The Delhi High Court’s verdict in this case serves as a landmark decision, reinforcing the accessibility of information under the RTI Act. By rejecting bulkiness as a barrier, the Court upholds the principles of transparency and accountability, essential for a democratic society.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International
