SECTION 4, RTI ACT 2005 – MAXIMUM DISCLOSURE OF
INFORMATION ‘SUO MOTO’ ON THE WEBSITE SO THAT
PUBLIC INTEREST IS PRESERVED
“MORE THE TRANSPARENCY IS – MORE WILL BE THE
GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY & ITS PEOPLE”
PITH & SUBSTANCE :-
In a bid to ensure implementation of mandatory obligation of Section 4, RTI Act, 2005, the Hon’ble State Information Commission, Haryana, in exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (5) of section 25, Act, 2005, in its laudable, logical and latest judgment/s (Six in number) titled Himanshu Raj Versus SPIO O/o Haryana Forest Development Corp. & others (Complaint No. 458 of 2020, decided on 08.12.2023), Himanshu Raj Versus SPIO O/o Haryana State Social Welfare Board (Complaint No. 460 of 2020 Decided on 08.12.2023), Himanshu Raj Versus SPIO O/o Animal Husbandry , Dairying & livestock Development Board (Complaint No. 462 of 2020 Decided on 08.12.2023) , Himanshu Raj Versus SPIO O/o Director Welfare of Scheduled Caste & Backward Classes Haryana (Complaint Case No. 463 of 2020 Decided on 08.12.2023) , Himanshu Raj Versus SPIO Director, Social Justice & Empowerment Department (Compliant No. 466 of 2020 Decided on 08.12.2023) and Himanshu Raj Versus SPIO Haryana Seeds Development Corporation (Complaint No. 464 of 2020 Decided on 08.12.2023) has :-
‘very categorically recommended the Public Authorities to disclose/upload maximum information – ‘SUO
MOTO’ – on the official website of the department in a scanned format – in compliance of Section 4, RTI Act, 2005 – so as to preserve the spirit of the Right to Information Act – and to further attain a fine balance between the goal of attaining transparency of information & safeguarding the public interest – i.e. the intent & object of the Parliament behind enacting the Right To Information Act 2005’. Relevant part of the order is superimposed hereunder as :-
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:-
The Complainant filed RTI Applications to the SPIOs of the various public authorities and sought information regarding compliance of the obligations of the Public authorities as stated in Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Pertinently, when the complainant did nor receive any response from the SPIOs, he approached the Hon’ble State Information Commission, Haryana to seek intervention. The Commission took cognizance of the matter and entertained all the requests under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. The requests were registered as complaint case no. 458, 460, 462, 463, 464 & 466 of 2020 . Upon issuance of the Show Cause Notice/s, the SPIO(s) appeared before the Commission and filed their written replies, however, failed to upload the information in compliance of section 4 of the Act, inter alia.
COMPLAINTS FILED BY ADVOCATE HIMANSHU RAJ IN LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST – DULY APPRECIATED BY STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHER INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS OF HARYANA :-
It is imperative to note here that the complainant Advocate Himanshu Raj , who is one of the leading lawyers and legal experts in the field of RERA, Housing, Consumer Disputes and Town Planning etc. – had filed the complaints in Larger Public Interest, and the relentless efforts made by Advocate
Himasnhu Raj were duly appreciated by the Hon’ble State Chief Information Commission , “ Sh. Yash Pal Singhal ” vide order dated 16.11.2020 . The same has been recorded in the judgment by the State Information Commissioner, Sh. Jai Singh Bishnoi, which is superimposed hereunder as :-
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT ADVOCATE HIMANSHU RAJ :-
The complainant, Advocate Himanshu Raj opened his submissions with a beautiful quote given by The Dalai Lama , a spiritual leader who is recognized globally as an embodiment of the highest human aspirations, which goes as :-
“A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity.”
OBJECT & INTENT BEHIND ENACTING THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, ESPECIALLY SECTION 4 OF THE ACT, 2005, INTER ALIA :-
The complainant Advocate Himanshu Raj submitted that the object behind enacting the RTI Act, 2005 was to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every Public Authority and democracy requires an informed citizenry.
The transparency of information has been considered vital to the functioning of democracy and also to avoid Corruption. To fortify the same, he referred to some quotes on importance of Transparency which are as under:-
“Transparency is the cornerstone of authenticity and trustworthiness; it is the antidote to hypocrisy.
It’s the bridge that connects our words with our actions, ensuring that our intentions align with our behavior.”
The complainant Advocate Himanshu Raj further submitted that the obligations of the Public Authorities under Section 4, RTI Act, 2005 are to be compulsorily performed apart from the other liability on the part of the Public Authority to supply information available with them.
MANDATE OF SECTION 4, RTI ACT, 2005 :-
The Complainant, Advocate Himanshu Raj distinctively submitted that under section 4(1) (a) of the RTI Act, every Public Authority is required to maintain all its records duly cataloged, indexed, systematically placed and as far as possible to computerize.
Section 4(1)(b) prescribes as many as ‘17 categories’ in which complete information regarding the functioning of every department and Public Authority has to be published on the public domain within the stipulated time period of 120 days from enactment of the Act, 2005 and update the said data on periodical basis as per the provisions of the Act;
Section 4(1)(c) requires all Public Authorities to publish all relevant facts on policy formulation within their domain and;
Section 4(1)(d) requires the Public Authorities to provide reasons for their administration or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. The said provisions intend to make automatic disclosure of maximum information about Public Authorities under the Act, 2005, inter alia.
JUDGEMENTS PASSED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH OF THE HON’BLE APEX COURT- “PER SE” IN REGARD TO MAXIMUM DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO BRING TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY :-
To fortify the arguments qua suo moto disclosure of maximum information, the complainant Advocate Himanshu Raj referred to a judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in RE: R.B.I. AND ORS. V. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY AND ORS, TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 91 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 707 OF 2012 DECIDED ON 16.12.2015, wherein the Hon’ble Court very categorically held that –
“The free flow of information about the affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for ‘open governance’ which is a foundation of democracy.”
In another landmark judgment titled CBSE AND ANR. VS. ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY AND ORS 2011 (8) SCC 497 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that –
“ The right to information is a cherished right. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which
relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption”.
Furthermore, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in RE: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER (WP (C) 12714/2009) , wherein the Hon’ble Court held that –
The information which a public authority is obliged to publish under Section 4 of the RTI Act should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet/ electronic format. . “
SECTION 4 OF THE ACT – “A FORGOTTEN PROVISION” :-
The Complainant Advocate Himanshu Raj recited in Sanskrit the most famous Shaloka, i.e. –
न कालमितवते महाः ेषु कमसु ।
“NA KALAMATIVARTANTE MAHANTA SVESU KARAS” which means:-
“GREAT PEOPLE NEVER DELAY THEIR DUTIES”.
After stating the above-mentioned, the complainant Advocate Himanshu Raj apprised the Hon’ble Commission that it is a sorry saga of affairs that the object of Section 4 of the Act, 2005 is yet to see the light of the day, in letter & spirit. He contended that
section 4 of the Ac t has become a forgotten provision, whereas the same was framed to provide as much information SUO MOTU to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including internet and Web , so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
DECISION OF THE HON’BLE INFORMATION COMMISSION.
In the light of the submissions/arguments (mentioned above, inter alia) of the complainant Sh. Himanshu Raj, as well as in view of the judgments passed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jayantilal (supra) , Aditya Bandopadhyay (Supra)
& Delhi Development Authority (Supra) , the Hon’ble
Information Commission, Haryana while exercising the powers vested under section 25(5) of the RTI, Act, 2005, recommended the Public Authorities to disclose/upload maximum information suo moto on the website in a scanned form as per Section 4, Act, 2005, inter alia.
The Hon’ble Commissioner further recommended to the Chief Secretary to the Government Haryana in
Administrative Reform Department to consider repeating instructions to all the public authorities of the State issued by Chief Secretary to Government Haryana vide circular no. 5/52/2016-1AR dated 04.02.2019 directing them to implement the same meticulously.
CONCLUSION :-
The recent judgment by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana, has not only upheld the principle of “Openness and Transparency in the functioning of government” , but it has also served as a powerful reminder of the Right to Information as a cherished right of the citizen – intended to provide a formidable tool in the hands of responsible citizen to fight corruption and to bring transparency & accountability – by Maximum Disclosure & Minimum Restriction of the information by all the Public Authorities. This decision showcases the Court’s commitment as well as the commitment/relentless efforts of the complainant Advocate Himanshu Raj in strengthening the fabric of our nation and reinforcing the values that define us as a society.