“Right To Information Is A Fundamental Right”: Calcutta High Court Orders Expeditious Disposal Of RTI Query

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday reiterated that the Right to Information is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and directed the State Public Information Officer of the West Bengal Information Commission to dispose of a pending RTI request within 15 days.

Justice Rai Chattopadhyay was hearing a petition challenging the non-supply of information sought in 2018 and the subsequent handling of the RTI proceedings by the State Information Commission.

Emphasising the constitutional status of the right to information, the Court held: “The right to information is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.”

The Court further noted that the RTI Act does not create the right but merely provides the mechanism to operationalise it, adding that the Act “makes transparency a cornerstone of Indian democracy.”

It also underscored that a State Public Information Officer (SPIO) cannot avoid providing information merely because they are not the custodian of the records, observing that the statute does not permit such a defence.

Background

The petitioner had sought information from a school under the RTI Act on 10 October 2018. When no response was received within the statutory period, he pursued first and second appeals before the designated authorities. During pendency of the appeal, the information was eventually supplied — though after significant delay.

The petitioner, however, challenged a subsequent corrigendum issued by the West Bengal Information Commission, which closed the proceedings after earlier directing the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, to upgrade websites and ensure compliance with proactive disclosure obligations under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act.

The petitioner also complained that despite statutory rules designating the Head of Institution as custodian of school records, the State often designates Assistant Headmasters as SPIOs, leading to systemic delays and inability to furnish information.

Court's Findings

The Court accepted that the supply of the original information rendered that part of the petition infructuous. However, it addressed the broader grievance regarding inconsistency between statutory rules and administrative practice, observing that:

The 2018 amendment to the Management of Sponsored Institutions (Secondary) Rules makes the Head of Institution the custodian of school records.

Yet the AHM—not the Headmaster—is commonly designated as SPIO, despite lacking custody of records.

The Court held that despite this, an SPIO cannot refuse information simply because they are not the custodian. The Act allows and requires the SPIO to obtain material from the appropriate custodian and furnish it to the applicant.

Noting that a subsequent RTI application dated 2 January 2020 to the Law Officer/SPIO of the Information Commission remained pending, the Court directed that the Law Officer/SPIO must dispose of the application within 15 days of receiving the order.