CAUSE TITLE:
SWATI RAJIV GOSWAMI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD
DATE OF ORDER:
17th January 2023
JUDGE(S):
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
PARTIES:
Petitioner: SWATI RAJIV GOSWAMI
Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’ or ‘the Court’), has declared that the people have a right to know the standards the State Police employed to determine whether to allow protests or gatherings, underscoring the fact that our Constitution declared India to be a democratic republic and asks for "informed public.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Constitution of India 1949
- Article 226 states the power of the High Court to issue writ in the form of habeas corpus or mandamus and others
Right to Information Act 2005
- Section 4 – states the obligations on the public authority. Every public authority shall be maintaining their records in electronic form, such record should be published along with the details of the particulars and the relevant facts of the schemes posted online and all such matter should be in local language and easy to understand.
- Section 3 – provided people with right to information under this act
- Section 6- provides the process of obtaining the information
Gujarat Police Act 1951
- Section 33- states the power of making rules and regulations regarding traffic and for the safeguard of rules in public.
- Section 37- states the power of prohibiting certain actions for eliminating the disturbance.
BRIEF FACTS:
- The President signed the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, which was then released for public consumption in the official gazette on December 12, 2019. Some Ahmedabad citizens who wanted to voice their opinions on this change intended to do so in a peaceful way. According to the petitioner, who wanted to peacefully assemble, "the approval for such meeting and peaceful revolt is not permitted and is denied on the basis of scenario of law and security as well as issue of traffic."
- The petitioner requested permission for meeting and peaceful protest on December 29, 2019, on footpath of road adjacent to Kanoria Centre for Arts & Gufa of Ahmedabad. In a letter dated December 25, 2019, the police inspector at Gujarat University Police Station was asked for the material.
- The petitioner was notified on December 28, 2019, via "Samaj Yadi," that the permit for such an assembly and peaceful protest is not permitted and is refused due to the current state of law and order as well as the traffic issue. The petitioner who disobeyed the injunction did organise a gathering and was held in custody for a while.
- The petitioner wrote to respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, requesting a copy of the entire regulations created under Section 33 (1) (o) of the Police Act in order to learn more about the procedures under which the petitioner's permit was handled. Second, if a request was denied, consider whether that decision was made in accordance with any laws or norms in the C/SCA/11826/2020 dated 17th January 2023.
- The petitioner received a response stating that her application for the information she wanted was denied on March 6, 2020. The rejection of information and the response of respondent No. 1 in doing so are contested on the grounds that they are egregiously wrong, unlawful, and in violation of democratic, rule of law and natural justice principles.
QUESTIONS ROSE:
Whether the request which was rejected was done in accordance with the rules and regulations lay down under law.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:
The petitioner requests publication of the Rules created by the respondents in accordance with Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, through this petition filed in accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner additionally requests the publishing of any rules, regulations, instructions, manuals, and records kept by respondent No. 1 or under its control or utilised by its personnel for the performance of their duties, as well as online access to them.
The petitioner contends that the inability to publicise such rules appears to an illegal executive action that violates democracy, the rule of law, and natural justice. It also constitutes a violation of the petitioner's rights to free speech, expression, and assembly, which are guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution and the right to life, which is guaranteed by Article 21. Along with this there is violation of provision 33(6) of Gujarat Police Act and section 4 of RTI Act.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
- It was contended by the learned council that there has been no violation of the petitioner's basic or legal rights as a result of the respondent's actions or omissions. It was contend that the petition filed asking for a directive to respondent No. 1 to follow Section 4 of the Right to Information Act should be rejected due to the petition's complexity, uncertainty, and lack of cause of action. The petitioner did not contest the denial of permission, and the request under Section 33 was also denied. The petition should be rejected since the request for disclosure of rules and norms is entirely unrelated to the primary application.
- The petition should also be rejected since it claims an alternative remedy and a relief that falls outside the purview of public interest litigation. According to the argument, the RTI Act has a process whereby the State Public Information Officer's decision may be appealed under Section 19(1) of the Act if the application dated January 16, 2020, which requested specific information, is denied. A second appeal from an RTI Act judgement can be made to the State Information Commission. Given this hierarchical appeal process, the petitioner shouldn't go straight to the Court in order to get a writ of mandamus.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The Court stated that it is clear from a joint reading of Sections 4(1)(b), 4(2), 4(3), and 4(4) of the Right to Information Act that the petitioner is permitted to the information specified in Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, and as a result, the respondent is legally required to publish those details. Additionally, it is clear that the petitioner is obligated to know the rules constituted under Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act in order to understand the reasons why the petitioner was refused permission because, of the lack of knowledge.
- The petitioner will have difficulty opposing such approval, which would be a clear violation of his constitutional right to understand and apply the law of the nation, which he also violated. According to Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, the petitioner is permitted to a writ of mandamus for a directive to seek such data, particularly when doing so will clearly serve the purpose of the RTI Act, namely to learn the procedure used in the decision-making procedure, the standards set by it for the delivery of the State's functions, as well as the Rules and Regulations enabling such a decision-making process.
- The petition is approved for all the aforementioned grounds. The respondent No. 1 is further instructed to comply with the requirements of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act and publicise and make accessible on their website the details of all the Rules, Legislation, Directions, Guidebooks, and Records kept by it or under the Gujarat Police Act, Sec.33, in a direction that the same are made accessible and available to the general public. There are no cost orders.
CONCLUSION
The Right to Information of the people is a component of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which protects freedom of expression, as has been frequently underlined in the context of the RTI Act's implementation.
The Court has ordered the respondent to post all rules and orders on the webpage in a way that ensures they are open to the public, available, and in compliance with the Right to Information Act (RTI).
Since it is clear from the Act's mandate read in the context of its aims that it is intended to facilitate the open flow of information, the respondent cannot refuse to provide such regulations or orders.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
