Court Holds that Section 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) Exemptions of RTI Act Misapplied; Orders Department to Provide Information for Fair Defence Within 30 Days
In a significant judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the rejection of information sought by Akram Khan under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner, a former driver at the Family Court, Janjgir, had his services terminated following departmental inquiries. He sought information related to the inquiry to defend himself in an appeal challenging his termination. However, the department and subsequent appellate authorities denied the information citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Court, presided over by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, observed that the exemptions relied upon were misapplied. Section 8(1)(c) exempts disclosure if it causes breach of privilege of Parliament or State Legislature, and Section 8(1)(j) protects personal information that has no public interest or causes unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Court noted that the information sought pertained to the petitioner's own departmental enquiry and termination order. It was neither confidential third-party information nor related to parliamentary privilege or privacy concerns of others.
Emphasizing the petitioner's right to a fair defence, the Court held that withholding such information was contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act. The orders of the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority, and the State Information Commissioner were quashed. The Court directed the department to provide the requested information after payment of requisite fees within 30 days of the Court's order.
This judgment reinforces the principle that information necessary for an individual's defence in departmental proceedings cannot be denied under the guise of RTI exemptions, especially when the information does not involve third-party confidentiality or legislative privilege. It underscores the correct application of Section 8 exemptions and strengthens transparency and fairness in administrative actions.
Bottom Line:
The rejection of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the grounds of Section 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) was held to be contrary to the provisions of the Act when the information was neither confidential, related to a third party, nor caused any breach of privilege or invasion of privacy.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 8(1)(c), Section 8(1)(j), Section 19(3)
