High Court trashes order of CIC, rules EVMs are not 'Information' under RTI Act. [Read the Judgement]

In one of its recent judgement, the Delhi High Court has held that an Electronic Voting Machine or EVM doesn't qualify as "information" in terms of Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act and therefore, one cannot seek access to an EVM under the Act.

The Court passed the said order during the hearing of a plea in which the Election Commission of India put up a challenge against a decision passed by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).

BACKGROUND

One applicant under the RTI Act sought access to an EVM maintained by the Election Commission.

The Central Public Information Officer though, in turn, rejected the application. The Appellate Authority reiterated that EVMs were not information in terms of Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act.

Aggrieved by the orders, the appellant then filed an appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the CIC.

CIC, on the other hand, held that EVMs come within the ambit of the definition of “information” and were therefore subject to the RTI Act.

Disagreeing with CIC's stand, ELection Commission thereafter moved the High Court.

In its petition so filed, it assailed the finding that EVM came within the definition of information under the RTI Act. It contended that the conclusion was erroneous since the list of items included in the definition as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act ought to be read ejusdem generis.

The Court after duly hearing the submission of Learned Counsel of the petitioner noted that the RTI applicant sought an entire EVM which was used by Election Commission for conducting elections.

The Court then stated that Section 2(f), deal with records, document, memo, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

The Court was of the opinion that the attempt to only rely upon the word "models", as used in Section 2(f) of the Act, to claim an EVM under the RTI Act was "misplaced".

It further recorded that a 'model' usually represented a three-dimensional representation of a thing or proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original.

The Court observed:

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors., (2011) state that Section 3 of the RTI Act gave citizens only the right to access information and not any other consequential relief.

The Court thus set aside the order passed by the CIC and concluded as below:

The Election Commission was represented by Advocate Sidhant Kumar while none appeared for CIC.

The judgement has been  passed by Justice Jayant Nath on 17-12-2019.

Read Judgement Here: