MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Adding One More Exemption Under Section 8 of the RTI Act is Not Justified: Delhi High Court Upholds CIC's Directive for Transparency

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court  rejected the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade's (IIFT) plea against a directive from the Central Information Commissioner (CIC), which required the institute to provide comprehensive information requested under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by a former employee, Kamal Jit Chibber.

The central legal issue pertained to the IIFT's contention that the information requested by Chibber was too voluminous, claiming that compiling and providing this information would be unduly burdensome. The institute also argued that such requests add an unofficial exemption to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which was not legislated by the Parliament.

Chibber had requested detailed information regarding the institute's financial transactions, directorial expenditures, and other administrative details over several years, which the institute failed to provide initially. Following an unsatisfactory response to his first RTI application and subsequent appeals, the matter escalated to the CIC, which directed IIFT to comply with the request, emphasizing the importance of transparency as envisaged by the RTI Act.

Justice Subramonium Prasad meticulously addressed each point raised by IIFT, rejecting the notion that the voluminous nature of information could serve as a barrier to the right to information. The court held that:

The information sought by Chibber does not fall under any exemptions specified in Section 8 of the RTI Act, which include issues like sovereignty, integrity of India, or breach of parliamentary privilege, among others.

Denying information on the grounds of volume would effectively add an unauthorized exemption to the RTI Act, which is not permissible.

The court underscored the lack of overlap in the questions posed in different RTI applications by Chibber, dismissing IIFT's claim of repetitive requests.

Decision: The court upheld the CIC’s order, directing IIFT to provide the requested information and dismissing the institute’s arguments against the RTI application's scope and nature. The writ petition was dismissed, reaffirming the right to information as a fundamental tool for ensuring accountability in public institutions.

Date of Decision: April 26, 2024

Indian Institute of Foreign Trade vs. Kamal Jit Chibber

Latest Legal News