Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, quashed an order issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing disclosure of information related to the PM CARES Fund in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while allowing the petition filed by the Income Tax authority challenging the CIC's order dated April 27, 2022, stated that the information sought by the RTI applicant should have followed the procedure specified under Section 11 of the RTI Act. This section mandates giving notice to a third party, in this case, the PM CARES Fund, before divulging information.

The court emphasized that the CIC did not have jurisdiction to direct the furnishing of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. Even if the CIC had jurisdiction, the failure to give notice to the PM CARES Fund of the hearing would have vitiated the order, court noted.

The single-judge bench highlighted that satisfaction from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is necessary before divulging information under Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act. It opined that the satisfaction of these authorities cannot be transferred to any other authority under a general act for disclosing the sought information.

The respondent in the case, RTI applicant Girish Mittal, sought information regarding an exemption application under the Income Tax Act related to the PM CARES Fund and other applications filed between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020.

Court noted that the CIC order, which refused information on other exemption applications but directed disclosure for the PM CARES Fund, was inconsistent and contrary to the law.

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

The petitioner stated that the information related to a third party i.e. the PM CARES Fund, which was a registered trust, and therefore the impugned order could not have been passed without hearing that party.

On the contrary, the respondent in the petition argued that the PM CARES Fund was a body owned and controlled by the Government of India.

In the present case, the respondent's plea for information was first rejected by the CPIO on the ground that the information sought was personal in nature and was not related to any public activity or interest, and would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of an individual.

The First Appellate Authority upheld the rejection while stating that the PM CARES Fund did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act. Subsequently, the respondent approached the CIC which refused to provide information pertaining to other exemption applications on the ground that it entailed disclosure of personal details of various third-party entities.

It, however, directed the CPIO to reply to the respondent indicating the factual position concerning the availability of documents in terms of paras (a) & (b) of RTI application, that is, copies of all the documents submitted in exemption application in relation to PM CARES Fund and file notings granting the approval within 15 days.

Case Title: CPIO/Dy Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi v. Girish Mittal