CASE TITLE:
State Information Commission Vs CV Rajendran and Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
7 October 2022
JUDGES:
Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar
PARTIES:
Petitioner: State Information Commission
Respondent: C.V. Rajendran and Ors.
SUBJECT
According to the Kerala High Court, if the State Information Commission receives a complaint alleging an improper denial of information under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, it may punish the guilty Public Information Officer. The law does not, however, provide the State Commission the authority to order the PIO to give the requester such information.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Right to Information Act
- Section 18 – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person, - (a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be.
BRIEF FACTS
- When a request for information made in accordance with Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is denied, whether explicitly or implicitly, the applicant has the option of filing an appeal in accordance with Section 19 of the RTI Act, and a subsequent complaint under Section 18 to the State Information Commission is not maintainable. This is the legal position set forth by this Court in its ruling in W.A. No. 180 of 2010 on October 28, 2014. State Information Commission, the first respondent in the Writ Appeal, took issue with it and filed this Review Petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Service of notice on respondents Nos. 2 through 4 was terminated with in accordance with an order dated 22.8.2022. Heard from the petitioner’s learned Standing Counsel and the first respondent’s knowledgeable Counsel.
- In the decision that was subject to review, the Division Bench found that the State Information Commission had violated its authority by ordering the first respondent to act on a complaint from August 17, 2007, by issuing Ext.P1. The requester filed that complaint, stating that the information he requested was not provided within the allotted period. As can be seen from Ext.P1, the Commission handled it as a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act.
- The Division Bench in such cases held that the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to issue a direction under Section 18 of the RTI Act to furnish the information sought and the only remedy available to the requester is to file an appeal as provided for in Section 19 of the RTI Act when an application made for information as provided for in Section 6 of the RTI Act is rejected, either expressly or otherwise.
- In Chief Information Commissioner and others v. State of Manipur and others [AIR 2012 SC 864], the Supreme Court ruled that Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act have two distinct goals, two distinct procedures, and two distinct remedies. The one cannot take the place of the other. The Apex Court further ruled that the Commission has the authority to impose a penalty under Section 20 of the Act under Section 18 of the Act.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the State Information Commission is empowered to impose penalty on an information officer under Section 18 of the Act if there is illegal denial of information or withholding of information?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
- The learned Standing Counsel who was representing the petitioner claimed that the principle established by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the aforementioned decisions was violated by the judgement sought to be reviewed position that a requester who was denied information must file an appeal as allowed under Section 19 of the RTI Act and cannot make a second complaint under Section 18 to the State Information Commission. Therefore, the ruling is incorrect and needs to be reviewed to the degree that it denies a person who was denied information the ability to register a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The court observed that a person aggrieved that he was denied access to the information he requested can only seek redress by following the procedure specified in the statute, namely Section 19 of the Act’s procedure, as the power under Section 18 is supervisory in nature while the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure. When the law offers a complete legal remedy under Section 19 to a person who feels wronged by the withholding of information, he must obtain the information by abiding by the aforementioned legal requirements. Since the provisions under Section 18 do not grant the Commission such authority, the aggrieved cannot use that section of the Act to obtain access to the information.
- Accordingly, a requester who was turned down for information cannot go to the State Information Commission and use Section 18 of the Act’s provisions to obtain the information. His only option if he wants information is to appeal as allowed by Section 19 of the Act. The requester may undoubtedly lodge a complaint in accordance with Section 18 of the Act, but the State Information Commission is powerless to order the Public Information Officer to provide information in response to such a complaint. While considering a complaint under Section 18, the State Information Commission has the authority to impose a penalty as set forth in Section 20 of the Act alone.
- According to the rule stated in the decision that is being appealed, the applicant has no other options if his request for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act is denied, either explicitly or implicitly, other than to file an appeal as specified in Section 19 of the Act. He also is not permitted to file a complaint with the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
CONCLUSION
The judgement, to the extent that it states that a requester is not permitted to file a complaint with the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act when his Section 6 request for information is denied, goes against the letter and spirit of the Act and is therefore subject to review. If there is an illegal denial of information or withholding of information, a person may approach and invoke the State Information Commission’s jurisdiction through a complaint made under Section 18 of the Act. The State Commission may, in response to such a complaint, levy a fine rather than ordering the Public Material Officer to provide the required information. In accordance with this, the Review Petition is dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
