HC refuses EVM sought under RTI: The Act gives citizen only Right to Access Information & not any other Consequential Relief (Read Judgement)

The bench presided of Justice Jayant Nath passed a judgment in a case titled Electronic Commission of India v. Central Information Commission.

The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner against an Order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) wherein it was held that Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) is an information under the RTI Act.

The Court held that it is manifest that all citizens have been given a Right to Information, information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, it is clear from a reading of Section 2(f) that it deals with records, document, memo, etc.

The respondent sought the entire EVM that is used by the petitioner for conducting elections. The Court raised the question, “Can such a request be termed to be a request under section 2(f) of the Act?”

The High Court stated that,

 “the attempt of the petitioner to only rely upon the word “models‟ used in section 2(f) of the Act and to claim that an EVM be provided to him is a misplaced act. A model usually represents a three-dimensional representation of a thing or proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original. The shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th Edition defines the model as follows:- ‘Draw a plan of; produce a preliminary version of. Also, give an outline or synopsis of.; Frame a model or miniature replica of’.”

By relying on Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497 the Court held that the an EVM which is sought for by the RTI application is not miniature/replica and hence cannot said to be a model. It cannot be termed to be information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act.

The HC stated that it is clear that the application seeking an EVM is actually an application for supply of a product and not any information which is beyond the scope of the RTI Act, the impugned order of CIC suffers from manifest error. Therefore, the Order was set aside by the High Court.

Read the Judgement: