Well-versed tactic of official not to give information do not deserve to be PIO - Madras HC
Well-versed tactic of official not to give information do not deserve to be PIO - Madras HC
- Oishi Sen
THE TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
MR. P. MUTHIAN
In The High Court of Judicature at Madras
W.P.No.17677 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010
Date- 07-09-2020
Facts: -
The petition was filed in the High Court of Madras under Art 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority on 20.11.2009.
The TNPSC is a constitutional body that conducts examinations and makes selections to the services of the State as well as carries out functions of extension of consultation in respect of disciplinary matters, recruitment methods, etc.
The respondent vide a letter dated 06.10.2008 to Public Information Officer, Chennai sought for information regarding vacancies in 2006, 2007 and 2008 and seats allocated to the backward “sub-castes of Muthuraja and Muthriyar”, “sub-caste Ambalakarar”, “Vanniya Kula Shatriar sub-castes (Vanniyar, Vanniya, Vanniya Gounder, Kandar, Padayachi Palli and Agni Kular Shathriar).” The TNPSC furnished the information sought for but held back the information regarding caste-wise selection under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved by the reply, the respondent approached the Second Appellate Authority, i.e., the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (TNIC) passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2009. The petitioner has approached the HC seeking to quash the order so passed on grounds that it is “unjust, illegal, improper and an arbitrary exercise of power”.
Issues:-
Whether the information withheld by TNPSC comes under the ambit of Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005?
Arguments:
•It was the case of the Petitioner, i.e., TNPSC that the information sought by the respondent comes under the purview of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent seeks information which majorly includes the castes of the candidates and disclosing such information violates TNPSC’s moral obligations to maintain confidentiality and would violate the privacy of the individuals so listed.
Caste wise break up is not related to any public activity and disclosure of the same would cause communal strife.
•The Counsel for the respondent was absent on the said date.
Summary of judgement:-
The High Court of Madras upheld the order of the TNIC and subsequently rejected the TNPSC’s contention regarding Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act and held that it is unjustified since “the purpose of enactment of RTI Act itself is to ensure transparency in all respects”.
The Court gave a comprehensive interpretation of the intent and purpose behind the RTI Act’s implementation. Paragraph 8 of the said judgement reads as follows:-
“On a close scrutiny of the Preamble and the object of the Act, it is manifestly obvious that the scope of freedom of information has been widely spread with the object and purpose to give right to information to its citizens in order to ensure transparency in Government dealings.”
While referring to Section 6 of the Act which states that a person need not disclose any reasons whatsoever as to why he desires the sought information, the Court’s interpretation was:-
“As a matter of fact, the provision of Section 6 confers right to information to any person for the obvious reason that right to information flows from the right to expression.”
The Court declined the TNPSC’s contention that disclosure regarding caste-wise selection ought to infringe privacy of the individuals, since the selection was itself based upon caste-wise quota. Additionally, when the system of reservation is prevalent and the general list was already brought in public view, the Court found no grounds of moral dilemma as to why TNPSC could not furnish the respondent with the necessary information.
Addressing the TNPSC’s apprehension that substantive disclosure of detailed selections on the basis of caste wise reservations would result in communal conflict as “illusion and imaginary”, the Court held:-
“if it is the real concern of TNPSC and the Government, they should think of abolishing the quota system as well as removal of column regarding caste particulars in the school certificate itself, so that the people of Tamil Nadu could stand united under one roof irrespective of caste, creed, religion, etc. at least in the year 2050 and our State will be a model State for the whole of the country.”
It referred to the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain and Ors. (AIR 1975 SC 65) where it was held by the Supreme Court that people of this country have the right to know about every public activity that is done publicly by their governments and other public functionaries and that a “veil of secrecy” was against the public interest in a democratic society like ours. The Supreme Court has even brought the Chief Justice under the purview of the RTI Act.
The High Court therefore opined that the information that the respondent has asked for in the present case will only add to the benefit of the candidates as they will be given a better understanding about their selection or rejection as the case maybe. This would further increase transparency of the working of the public functionary.
While upholding the impugned order dated 20.11.2009, the Court praised the TNIC:-
“This may be one of the rarest of rare cases where the Second Appellate Authority has boldly taken a decision, which does not warrant any interference by this Court, as there is no error apparent on the face of record.”
Courts happen to decline the claimant’s request for disclosure of document due to the petition’s pendency and it was of the view that unless an interim order is specifically granted, “Mere pendency of the matter is not a bar to furnish details even if it pertains to the very same case pending before the Court.”
In this judgement the Court addressed the well-versed tactic of officials not to give necessary information using Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and opined that such officials do not deserve to be PIOs.
The Court directed the PIO and the Appellate authority to submit a report of the offences committed under RTI Act which was in consonance with Section 20 of the said Act. Subsequently the petition was dismissed on lack of merits.
