HC Kohima Bench upholds NIC’s orders directing DGP Nagaland to furnish complete RTI info
Morung Express News
Dimapur | December 17
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench, on December 16, held that the Nagaland Information Commission (NIC) has rightly directed the concerned authorities to give the information sought by the Naga Tribal Union Chümoukedima Town (NTUCT) in an RTI application regarding appointments in the State Police Department during the period 2019-2020.
Accordingly, a single-bench comprising Justice Songkhupchung Serto dismissed a writ petition filed by the office of the Director General Police (DGP) Nagaland against earlier orders passed by the NIC directing the former to furnish complete information.
In the judgment order, the judge noted that the careful reading together of the provisions of the RTI Act and relevant portions of the judgment of the Supreme Court cited during the proceedings “clearly shows that when an information relating to personal information of a third party is sought such information can be denied, but if the information sought for relates to or is connected with larger public interest, the same can be given.”
“In other words, information sought for may relate to personal information but if public interest involved in it is so overwhelming, then the information sought for has to be given,” he elaborated.
The judge further said that the words “promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority” in the introduction of the RTI Act, 2005 show that the main purpose of the Act is to “promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.” Therefore, every information which may be classified as personal information cannot be denied if it is connected or has relationship with public interest; because if that is done, the very purpose of the Act would be defeated.
In the present case, he pointed out that the RTI applicant sought for information to know who were appointed in the Police Department “in such recruitment process where the process provided under the relevant rules are suspected to have been flouted or have not been followed, so that, further necessary steps can be taken to prevent such illegal appointments in future.”
This undoubtedly involves public interest because equality clause of the Constitution mandates that every citizen must be given equal opportunity when it comes to employment in Government jobs, and the exception clause provided in Section 8 particularly Clause (i) and (j) does not apply, the judge concluded.
Background of the case
On August 22, 2020, the NTUCT represented by its president submitted an RTI application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the office of the DGP Nagaland requesting information regarding the number of posts advertised under the establishment of DGP, Nagaland Kohima for 2019; Number of appointments made under the establishment of DGP from 2019 till date; Appointment orders of (i) UBSI (GD) (ii) SI (Opr) (iii) SI (Tech) (iv) ASI (v) LDA Directorate (PHQ Kohima) (vi) LDA District (vii) Stenographer (GR-III) from 2019-2020; and Appointment orders of Non Combatant Executives (NCE) from January 1, 2018-2020.
The reply from the PIO dated October 28, 2020 furnished information regarding the first two queries but stated that the last two queries were protected under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and thus cannot be revealed.
Not satisfied with the reply, the NTUCT approached the First Appellate Authority i.e., the DGP Nagaland for complete information but the appeal was dismissed on December 17, 2020.
Being aggrieved, the NTUCT approached the NIC which disposed the appeal on July 27, 2021 by directing the DGP to furnish complete information and to submit action taken report to within 40 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Subsequently, the DGP appealed the Commission’s Second Appellate Authority but the latter in an order dated November 24, 2021 upheld the earlier order. Thereafter, the DGP Nagaland approached the HC Kohima Bench challenging the two orders of the NIC.
Proceedings
During the hearing, the counsel for the DGP, among others, submitted that only citizens are entitled to seek and obtain information as per Section 3 of the Act, and the NTCUT, being an association, has no right to seek and obtain information.
Further, the counsel pointed out that Section 8 of the Act, provides certain exceptions for which there is no obligation to give information to any citizen. More specifically, he referred to clause (1) (j) of Section 8, and said that the information sought pertains to appointment orders of Police personnel, which contains personal details. To pass on such information to a third party would mean invasion of privacy, the counsel contended.
Moreover, such information will not in any way serve public interest and the NIC’s orders were beyond the scope of the RTI Act and jurisdiction, he added.
The counsel also referred to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court wherein information of individual employees working in a Bank were exempted from disclosure under Section 8(I)(j); and the applicant had not disclosed any public interest in seeking the information.
Countering the same, the NIC counsel argued that the RTI application was submitted by an individual who is a citizen of the country and as it was submitted with his signature, it was not a case of a juristic person (non-human).
The NIC counsel pointed out that in the SC case cited by the counsel for the petitioner, the applicant had not disclosed their identity but simply signed as Secretary of the Commission.
The NIC counsel also referred to a guide to RTI by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personal and Training which states that “if an application is made by an employee or office bearer of any Corporation, Association, Company, NGO etc. indicating his name and such employee/office bearer is a citizen of India, information may be supplied to him/her.”
The NTUCT counsel, while reiterating the NIC counsel’s submission, noted that the information was sought because so “many backdoor appointments were made in the Police Department” and such public interest merited disclosure of information.
After considering the submissions, the judge concluded that the requirement of Section 3 has been squarely met as the applicant, among others, gave his name and signature in the RTI application.
Regarding the judgement cited by the petitioner, the Judge said while certain category of information can be classified as personal information, “The question of whether such information must be disclosed has to be determined by the CPIO on a case-to-case basis, depending on the public interest demonstrated in favour of disclosure.”
The judge also reproduced the provisions of Section 8(i) (j) highlighting the case of larger public interest justifying the disclosure of such information. Accordingly, the judge found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same.
