Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan 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