Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.51 seconds)Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
In this context, we also note the following observations made by the
Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in
Civil Appeal No. 6454 Of 2011 in which it has advised the information seekers not create a
situation whereby 75% of the time of the 75% public servants is spent only in responding
to the RTI applications to the detriment of their routine duties. Para 37 of the said order is
extracted below:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are
intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly
and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of
section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the
working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other
information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the
Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of
sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments,
etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all
and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of
public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will
adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged
down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should
not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development
and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor
should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do
their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities
spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of
discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of
the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities
prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar And Ors. on 5 February, 2014
We further note the following observation made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment
dated 5.2.2014 in Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014]:
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has
to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose
faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent
Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be
checked in accordance with law."
Section 4 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
1