Safeguarding The Right to Information: Interim Findings of The PEOPLE’S RTI ASSESSMENT 2008 RTI & THE COURTS

1. Safeguarding The Right to Information: Interim Findings of The PEOPLE’S RTI ASSESSMENT 2008RTI & THE COURTS Girija Krishan Varma Attorney Fellow, Stanford Law School Email: girijav@stanfordalumni.org girija.stanfordattorney@yahoo.com

2. Methodology • Primary source: litigated CIC & SIC orders • Before various High Courts of India • Examination of files & court decisions • Data Collected: (so far) • Cases collected individually from Attorney • Court website often does not display the orders • Delhi High Court: 20 cases (summary of 15)

3. Purpose of Study? • Who is filing ? • What is being challenged? • Case progression: faster/ or different? • Judiciary’s role in interpreting the law & Spirit of the Act (precedents)

4. Assessment Criteria • Sample: (Delhi High Court only) • Examination of court records • 20 court files - only 15 selected • Cases filed from 2006 to 2008 • Nature of complaints • 80% cases (of sample) challenged by RTI applicant • 4 cases it was Union of India (UOI), Government • Response of “public authority” • Evaded first few appearances • Delay in filing reply • Applicant (UOI) sought “stay/ injunction” • Length of the litigation • Few Exceptions (Bhagat Singh vs. CIC) • “Run of the mill” cases • Court orders and judgments (very few precedents)

5. Case Study ….1 • Info. Re.: Appointment of a sitting Judge • CIC directed • Disclosure of correspondence between CJI & Law Minister • Info. regarding recommendations for appointment of Hon’ble Judges. • Refused disclosure of letter which conveys the decision of the Collegium to the Law Minister from CJI • Under Sec 11 (1) as being third party information. • CIC’s decision was contested by Union of India in Ct., on ground it impacts the independence of the judiciary • Interim stay sought by UOI is pending

6. Case Study…..2 • Info sought: Names of MCD’s Officials responsible for cleaning of public place & daily cleaning activities • No response from MCD & delay of proceedings • MCD verbally threatened physical assault (FIR lodged) • Judiciary ignored the “public cause” & non-compliance of mandatory provision (Sec 4 )of RTI Act. • Litigation pending for more than 1.5 years

7. Case Study……3 Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Income Tax Department • Interprets Sec 8 (1) (h) that disallows disclosure as “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders” • Positive outcome as Hon’ble Judge held: • “mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; • the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. • Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.” • A precedent that strongly supports the spirit and underlying principles of the Right to Information Law. • Judgment was delivered within 9 months of filing.

8. Findings • Courts have been positive: admit cases • Stay is granted conservatively & if given then judiciously • Cases progress as “run of the mill” cases, unless strongly pursued • Need more sensitivity to “public cause” that is involved • Mostly Courts have taken a liberal approach

9. Thank you