Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner-Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), challenging the order dated 09-11-2015, passed by the Chief Information Commissioner (‘CIC’), Sanjeev Narula, J., stated that the absence of a specific prohibition in the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (‘2005 Regulations’), regarding access to NCDRC records to third parties, should not be construed as an implicit prohibition. The Court stated that the interpretation of the 2005 Regulations must align with the overarching goal of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) to enhance transparency and access to information. This absence of specific prohibition should not be misconstrued as an implicit restriction, but rather recognized as a gap in the regulatory framework.
The Court stated that mere status of an individual as a ‘third party’ did not automatically exclude them from the right to access information, especially when such information might have broader public implications. The RTI Act mandated a careful balancing of interests, weighing the need for privacy against the public interest in disclosure. Thus, the Court remanded the matter back to the petitioner, and directed the petitioner to reassess respondent’s request, balancing the need for transparency with the privacy rights of the individuals involved.
Background
In the present case, the respondent filed an RTI application dated 10-12-2014, specifically requesting copies of Rameshwar Prasad Srivastava v. Dwarkadhis Project Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 406, along with all interlocutory applications and the written statement filed in the case. Thereafter, in response, the petitioner, through a communication dated 31-12-2014, declined to provide the requested documents and stated that only parties involved in the matter were entitled to the documents, judgments, or orders related to the case. The refusal was based on Regulation 21 of the 2005 Regulations.
Subsequently, the respondent filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was dismissed through an order dated 06-02-2015. Further, the respondent filed an appeal before the CIC, wherein he succeeded vide order dated 09-11-2015. Thus, the appellant filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the present case involved the interplay between the RTI Act, and the 2005 Regulations framed under Section 30-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘CPA’). The core issue was whether the regulatory framework under the CPA adequately addressed the rights of third parties to access information. The Court stated that while there was a need to account the fiduciary confidentiality vested in tribunals, there must also be sufficient measures to accommodate third-party rights under the overarching objectives of transparency and accountability under the RTI Act.
The Court stated that the absence of a specific prohibition in the 2005 Regulations, regarding access to NCDRC records to third parties, should not be construed as an implicit prohibition. Regulation 21 of the 2005 Regulations, when interpreted literally, established mechanism for issuing certified copies to parties directly engaged in the proceedings. Similarly, Regulation 22 specified the procedures for these parties to inspect records, establishing a structured approach for parties to access pertinent information. However, the Court stated that these provisions did not extend to or explicitly address the rights of a third party, nor do they impose any specific prohibitions against third party access to such information.
The Court stated that the interpretation of the 2005 Regulations must align with the overarching goal of the RTI Act to enhance transparency and access to information. This absence of specific prohibition should not be misconstrued as an implicit restriction, but rather recognized as a gap in the regulatory framework. The Court stated that the Regulation 21 of the 2005 Regulations, had been to be interpreted as an absolute bar on third parties from seeking information and certified copies. However, this implicit bar would render 2005 Regulations in conflict with the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the Court also referred to Section 22 of the RTI Act, which stipulated that in instances of any inconsistency between the RTI Act and other laws, the RTI Act would prevail.
Further, the Court observed that the reliance on Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act by the First Appellate Authority was ex-facie misconceived. The specific term used in the 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act was “expressly forbidden.” The Court stated that it was unable to identify any explicit prohibition or declaration to this effect. Even if the regulations, were interpreted as ‘forbidding’ the supply of documents, it was certainly not explicit. These regulations didn’t prohibit or forbid dissemination of information or grant of certified copies of records.
The Court stated that mere status of an individual as a ‘third party’ did not automatically exclude them from the right to access information, especially when such information might have broader public implications. The RTI Act mandated a careful balancing of interests, weighing the need for privacy against the public interest in disclosure. This necessitated a substantive assessment of whether the disclosure of such information indeed poses a significant risk to privacy that outweighs the public interest.
The Court stated that in the present case, the denial of access to the requested documents was predicated merely on the applicant being a third party to the proceedings, without a substantive evaluation of the potential privacy concerns or the public interest served by disclosure. Given these considerations, the Court stated that the argument that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act justified withholding the requested information appeared to be insufficiently substantiated. There was clearly a need for a more detailed assessment that explicitly addresses whether the specific information requested would indeed lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Thus, the decision of the FAA and the position advanced by the petitioner lacked the necessary legal ground to override the objects of the RTI Act, which prioritize transparency and the right to information.
The Court stated that the NCDRC as a tribunal, handles sensitive data concerning parties involved in litigation. Information pertaining to judicial proceedings inherently contains personal data, which necessitates safeguarding the privacy of litigants. However, the respondent’s status as a third party did not inherently entitle him to access or obtain certified copies of documents from NCDRC proceedings. To maintain the confidentiality, it was prudent for this Court to mandate that any third party, to submit a detailed application or affidavit when requesting information or certified copies showing good cause to receive such material.
Thus, the Court remanded the matter back to the petitioner, and directed the petitioner to reassess respondent’s request, balancing the need for transparency with the privacy rights of the individuals involved. The decision to disclose or withhold information should be made judiciously, considering the stipulations of Section 8 of the RTI Act as this approach ensured that the provisions of the RTI Act were not compromised, while also respecting the confidentiality required in judicial proceedings.
[CPIO v. A.K. Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5708, decided on 26-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vidur Mohan, Kaushal Kumar Singh and Shefali Munde, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, K.V. Prasad and Anirudh Anand, Advocates (Amicus Curiae)
That CPIO of NCDRC is not giving requested information either through an RTI application or as per con regu act 2005. That Registrar/Appellate Auth also upholds CPIO’S denial. That CPIO refused information (copy of docket order in RP. 378/2022, wherein I am authorized party to represent petitioners before NCDRC) to supply copy of docket order in that RP, by RTI application providing some irrelevant earlier order of CIC. When submitted another application with PO for required amount as per con pro regn 2005 he declined giving tha same irrelevant judgement by CIC. Public information office is not functioning as per RTI act 2005. I had to give up filing a second appeal before CIC since it takes couple of years to deliver a judgement. By the time my case also would have been decided.