The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the Central Information Commissioner and stated that while reversing orders of lower authorities, the CIC must record appropriate reasons for the decision.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the writ petition against CIC order dated 04.06.2015, and observed, ‘In the present case, there is no finding returned by the Central Information Commission that there is a larger public interest which justices the disclosure of the information, in fact, there is no reasoning or rationing accorded in the impugned order except to direct the petitioner to furnish the information.’
The petitioner had challenged CIC order that directed him to provide information sought by an RTI applicant. The provision of said information was declined by the CPIO and upheld by the first Appellate Authority as the same was exempted under Section 8(1)(g) and (j) of the Right to Information Act on the ground that being personal information, there is no public interest involved. The CIC, however, reversed the order and directed the petitioner to provide information to the applicant/respondent.
The court observed that the CIC merely recorded the contention of the appellant and the respondents and passed a ‘one-liner’ order, which just directs the petitioner to provide the sought information within 30 days.
“The Central Information Commission has not returned any finding as the infirmity in the orders of the CPIO and the first appellate authority. The CIC has not recorded any finding as to how the information, sought for by the respondent, is not exempted under Section 8 of the Act. There is no reasoning given by the Central Information Commission in the order as to the errors committed by the CPIO as well as the First Appellate Authority,” stated the court.
Read the Judgment here.
This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.