Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and its officials, quashing the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order that had issued show-cause notices to the Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court held that the CIC’s approach was ultra vires its powers under the RTI Act since the Act does not require public authorities to create or compile information they do not maintain, nor does it empower the CIC to impose penalties when there is no mala fide denial or deliberate withholding of existing information.
Facts
HPCL, a central government public sector undertaking, faced an RTI application from its suspended employee, who sought the list of HPCL’s empanelled advocates across courts for the past 15 years. HPCL initially responded that it does not maintain a panel of advocates and engages counsel on a case-to-case basis. Upon first appeal, HPCL provided a compiled list of 603 advocates who had handled cases for it.
The respondent filed a complaint with the CIC claiming the information was incomplete and alleging that HPCL indeed maintained an empanelled panel, citing an earlier RTI response where the term “empanelled advocate” was mentioned. The CIC, in its impugned order dated 27 September 2023, issued show-cause notices to HPCL’s present and former CPIOs under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, suggesting that HPCL had failed to act transparently, and questioned HPCL’s policy of engaging advocates without a formal panel.
Issues
- Whether the CIC could issue show-cause notices under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act in the absence of mala fide denial or deliberate withholding of information.
- Whether the CIC had jurisdiction to question the policy of HPCL regarding the empanelment of advocates under the RTI Act.
- Whether the CIC’s order was sustainable when the information sought was not maintained by the public authority.
Petitioner’s Arguments
HPCL, through senior counsel, argued that:
- The CIC exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections 18 and 20 of the RTI Act by delving into policy matters unrelated to the statutory framework of RTI.
- The CIC’s role is confined to ensuring the disclosure of information held by the public authority, not to enforce policy decisions or scrutinise operational methods.
- The information sought was not maintained by HPCL, and it nonetheless made a bona fide effort to compile a list for the applicant.
- The penalty provision under Section 20(1) could only be invoked in cases of mala fide denial or deliberate provision of false or misleading information, which was not the case here.
They also highlighted the misuse of RTI by the respondent, who had filed over 160 RTI applications and numerous appeals to harass the organisation, and referenced judicial precedents to emphasise the limited scope of the CIC’s powers.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent’s counsel argued:
- The CIC’s issuance of a show-cause notice was procedurally valid under Section 20(1) since the applicant’s assertion was that the provided list was incomplete and misleading.
- The writ petition was premature as it challenged a show-cause notice, which does not constitute a final order and could be contested later if an adverse order was passed.
- The petition was defective for not impleading the CIC, making it procedurally untenable.
- Reference was made to the language used by HPCL in a previous RTI reply mentioning “empanelled advocates,” arguing that this evidenced the existence of such a panel, contrary to HPCL’s claims.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of Sections 18 and 20 of the RTI Act, noting:
- Section 18 provides for inquiry into complaints regarding refusal to provide information or provision of incomplete, misleading, or false information.
- Section 20(1) allows imposition of a penalty only if the PIO has, without reasonable cause, denied information, provided false or misleading information, or destroyed the requested information.
- Mere errors in interpretation or genuine belief that the information is unavailable cannot automatically trigger penalties.
The Court highlighted the principle that the CIC’s jurisdiction does not extend to making policy prescriptions for public authorities or questioning the wisdom of their administrative decisions regarding empanelment of advocates, which lies outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon:
- Union of India v. Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359: Clarified the scope of CIC’s powers under the RTI Act.
- Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497: Held that the RTI Act should not be misused to hamper government functioning and should only seek information maintained by public authorities.
- Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 13 SCC 14: Held that negligence alone does not attract penalties under Section 20(1) unless it is persistent and without reasonable cause.
- Shishir Chand v. CIC (2023 SCC OnLine Del 8108): Noted increasing misuse of the RTI Act to harass government officials.
- Bar Council of Delhi v. CIC (2017 SCC OnLine Del 6992): Emphasised the requirement that penalties under Section 20(1) must be based on clear findings of mala fide denial of information.
- Union of India v. Ram Gopal Dixit (2024): CIC cannot give policy directives unrelated to the scope of the RTI Act.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed:
- HPCL’s repeated and clear position was that it does not maintain a panel of advocates, and the list provided was a voluntary, bona fide compilation based on available records.
- The CIC’s reasoning shifted from the statutory mandate of verifying whether information held by HPCL was denied to policy observations regarding HPCL’s empanelment practices, which were extraneous to its jurisdiction.
- There was no evidence to show that HPCL deliberately withheld information, misled, or acted without reasonable cause.
- The RTI Act does not empower the CIC to investigate or enforce administrative policy standards regarding the engagement of counsel by a public authority.
In view of these findings, the Court held the CIC’s order to be without jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court quashed the CIC’s order dated 27 September 2023, holding it to be without jurisdiction, and set aside the show-cause notices issued to HPCL’s officials under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Court ruled that no further proceedings would be required before the CIC regarding the impugned order since the complaint itself was wrongly entertained under Section 18 without an appeal under Section 19, and there was no denial of information held by HPCL.
Implications
- Clarifies the CIC’s limited jurisdiction under the RTI Act, confining it to information disclosure and not policy-making or administrative scrutiny.
- Strengthens protections for PIOs from unwarranted penalties where there is no mala fide denial of information.
- Affirms that public authorities are not obliged to create or compile non-existent information to satisfy RTI queries.
- Discourages misuse of RTI as a tool for harassment, aligning with the judiciary’s emphasis on preventing inefficiency in governance due to frivolous RTI demands.
- Reinforces the purpose of the RTI Act as an instrument of transparency, not as a mechanism to settle personal grievances or to interfere with administrative discretion.
FAQs
1. Is the CIC empowered to issue policy directives to public authorities under the RTI Act?
No. The CIC’s role is confined to ensuring the disclosure of information held by public authorities and does not extend to enforcing or questioning administrative policies.
2. Can penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act be imposed for incomplete information if it is not maintained by the public authority?
No. Penalties can only be imposed for mala fide denial or knowingly providing incorrect information held by the authority, not for failing to provide non-existent information.
3. What is the significance of this judgment for PIOs handling RTI requests?
The judgment protects PIOs from unwarranted harassment under the RTI Act and clarifies that they are not obliged to create or compile information not maintained by the authority.
