Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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