No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

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

Similar News