Bombay HC Refuses RTI Request on Heritage Building Audits

The public information officer of the Bombay High Court has declined to provide information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding the structural audits of the court’s heritage building in south Mumbai. The officer claimed that disclosing such details could jeopardize the lives of judges and other officials.

Environmental activist Zoru Bathena had submitted an RTI application last month, seeking copies of the most recent three structural audits conducted for the main and annexe buildings of the Bombay High Court. Bathena explained that he had sought this information for another case related to the reconstruction of the 135-year-old reservoir at Malabar Hill in south Mumbai.

According to Bathena, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had asserted that the reservoir was beyond repair and needed to be reconstructed. To counter this claim, Bathena wanted to provide examples of the high court building and the BMC’s headquarters building, both of which are over a century old but are being repaired, not reconstructed. He asserted that he had requested the structural audit reports of the BMC building and received the information. However, the high court declined to provide the same.

In a response dated November 1, the high court’s public information officer rejected Bathena’s application, stating that the information sought cannot be disclosed because it is unrelated to larger public activities or interests. The response further indicated that the information is exempted from disclosure for security reasons and that its revelation could jeopardize the lives or physical safety of the Bombay High Court’s judges and officials.

The response also mentioned that the information is held by the relevant department in a “fiduciary relationship,” and preserving the confidentiality of such sensitive information is necessary. As no significant public interest was demonstrated in Bathena’s application, the information sought cannot be disclosed due to the exemption from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, according to the public information officer.

The environmental activist stated that he intends to file an appeal against the refusal to provide the information with the appropriate appellate authority.