Court rules public authorities are only required to disclose information they possess, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed a series of orders from the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to obtain information from the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) for disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The decision aligns with established Supreme Court jurisprudence that public authorities are only required to provide information they already hold.
The case, adjudicated by a division bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, involved multiple writ petitions filed by SEBI and BSE against the CIC's interpretation of the RTI Act. The petitions contested the CIC's direction, which mandated SEBI to procure information from BSE to fulfill RTI applications.
Central to the court's deliberation was the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which, according to the court, does not impose an obligation on public authorities to collect or collate information from third parties. Instead, it is limited to information that is held or controlled by the public authority at the time of the request.
The ruling drew heavily on precedent, particularly the Supreme Court's decisions in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Both cases clarified that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to generate or compile information from external entities.
The court observed that the CIC's orders contradicted these Supreme Court rulings by misinterpreting the RTI Act's provisions. It emphasized that the Act's objective is to balance transparency with other public interests, ensuring that the demand for information does not overextend the capacities of public authorities.
The High Court's verdict underscores the limited scope of the RTI Act concerning third-party information, reaffirming that SEBI, as a regulatory body, is not compelled to extend its duty beyond providing information it currently possesses.
Despite the absence of representation from the original RTI applicants during the court proceedings, the bench proceeded to deliver its judgment, citing the binding nature of the Supreme Court's constitutional bench decisions.
This decision marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of the RTI Act, reinforcing the boundaries of public authority obligations and ensuring adherence to established legal principles.
Bottom Line :
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Public authority is not obligated to collect or obtain information from third parties to fulfill an RTI application. The duty of disclosure under the RTI Act extends only to information held or controlled by the public authority at the time of the request.
Statutory provision(s): Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 6, 8, 11, 18
