Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Directions To RTI Authorities Amid Rise In Cryptic, Non-Speaking Orders

In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that authorities including the Appellate Authorities under the Right to Information Act (RTI) have been passing “cryptic and non-speaking orders” in violation of the judgements of the Supreme Court, High Courts and mandate of the RTI Act.

Justice Vikas Bahl thus directed authorities handling appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to provide clear and reasoned orders while adjudicating cases.

“ This Court has found that in a large number of cases, the authorities including the first Appellate Authority {while adjudicating the first statutory appeal under Section 19(1)} and the second Appellate Authority {while adjudicating the second statutory appeal under Section 19(3)} under the Act, have been passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts and also in violation of the mandate of the Act of the Act of 2005.”

Justice Bahl thus issued the following directions to be followed by the appellate authorities under the Act while handling RTI appeals:

• Specify the information points sought by the applicant.
• Provide a point-wise reply to each information request.
• Categorically indicate whether the information has been supplied and specify the date of supply.
• If information is denied, record reasons for the denial and after considering the submissions made by both parties, return a finding on the same.
• Record any other necessary observations or findings on the case.

The judgment came in response to a civil writ petition where the petitioner challenged a cryptic and non-speaking order passed by the State Information Commission.

The petitioner had filed an application seeking information on seven points under the RTI Act. Unsatisfied with the response, the petitioner moved an appeal, leading to the case reaching the State Information Commission. However, the Commission's decision lacked clear reasoning and failed to address specific points of contention, prompting the High Court's intervention.

It was further submitted that neither the details of the information which was sought has been mentioned in the impugned order nor has it been stated as to on which points the information has been supplied and on which points the information cannot be supplied and the reasons for the non-supply of the same.

The Court noted that the respondents could not dispute the fact that neither the details of the information sought in the application nor the date on which the information had been supplied nor any reasons have been given before disposing of/closing the second appeal. Considering the submissions the Court noted that, a perusal of the impugned order would show that no reference had been made to the various points on which the petitioner sought the information.

It has not even been observed in the impugned order that with respect to which point of the application, the information has been supplied and on which date, added the Court.

In the event, that information under a particular point was not to be supplied on account of any bar contained in any provision of the Act of 2005 or for any other reason, the finding on the said aspect must be recorded, which also has not been done in the present case, it said further.

“From a reading of the impugned order, neither the case of the petitioner nor the stand of the respondents is clear, nor it can be ascertained as to information under which clause/point of the application has been supplied and when,” observed the Court.

The Court concluded that the State Information Commissioner while adjudicating the second statutory appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Act was acting as a quasi-judicial authority. 

The Court emphasised that quasi-judicial authorities, like the State Information Commission in this case, are obligated to record comprehensive reasons for their decisions. This transparency ensures that justice not only is done but also appears to be done, reinforcing faith in the judicial process. The Court further highlighted that the reasons provided must be cogent, clear, and not mere "rubber stamp reasons."

The Court also discussed previous judgments highlighting the importance of recording reasons in decision-making. It stressed that even if not mandated by specific statutory provisions, reasons should be given to stand up to judicial scrutiny. The judgment cited cases where non-speaking orders had been quashed, and decisions were remanded for reconsideration.

Consequently, the Court directed set aside the order passed by the second appellate authority and remanded it to the State Information Commissioner, Punjab to decide the appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties.

“The State Information Commissioner, Punjab, is directed to pass a speaking order dealing with the contentions raised by both the parties. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Information Commissioner, Punjab, on 24.08.2023,” said the Court.

The Court also directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and the Advisor to the Chandigarh Administrator to circulate the judgment among all authorities under the RTI Act for compliance. 

As such, the plea was disposed of.

Case Title: Rajwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others

Appearance: Amandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

Click Here to Read/Download the Order