Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed

Asha Kanta Sharma

  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Judgements on the RTI Act, 2005 - Chief Information Commissioner Vs. State of Manipur AIR 2012 SC 864



Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Judgements on the RTI Act, 2005

By Shailesh Gandhi,
Former Central Information Commissioner

Judgment : Chief Information Commissioner Vs. State of Manipur AIR 2012 SC 864

The main issue before the Court: Whether the Information
Commissioner can direct the disclosure of information when a
complaint is made u/s 18 of the RTI Act.

The observations of the Court: Para 36: “This Court accepts the
argument of the appellant that any other construction would render the
provision of Section 19(8) of the Act totally redundant. It is one of the
well known canons of interpretation that no statute should be
interpreted in such a manner as to render a part of it redundant or

Para 37: “ We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve
two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they
provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the

The Court held that: No information can be ordered to be given in
complaints made u/s 18 of the RTI Act.

Our analysis of the judgment: The information which was sought by
the applicant was regarding magisterial enquiries. A complaint was filed
since no response was received. The Commission ordered information to
be provided. A single judge of High Court upheld the Commission’s
order. This was challenged before a division bench, which held that in a
complaint under Section 18 the Information Commission cannot pass an
order to release information.

The Supreme Court adopted a literal interpretation of the RTI Act and
refused to consider whether a purposive interpretation would have
served the purpose of the Act better. This is in contrast to the Allahabad
High Court judgement in AP 3262 (MB) of 2008 which said, ‘“We are
also of the view that the Commission while enquiring into the complaint
under Section 18, can issue necessary directions for supply/disclosure of
the information asked for, in case the Commission is satisfied that the
information has been wrongly withheld or has not been completely
given or incorrect information has been given.”

By this judgement an RTI applicant who files a complaint will have to
file a separate appeal for the same matter to obtain information. If a PIO
refuses to accept an RTI application the applicant will have to first go in
a complaint to the Commission and perhaps get the PIO penalised if she
is lucky. After this if the PIO takes her application but denies the
information saying it is ‘unrelated to transparency and accountability in
the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption’, she
can be denied her fundamental



Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy