The Kerala High Court has observed that a citizen cannot ask for Papers which are yet to be Placed before the Cabinet under RTI.
A single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman in the case of Jayachandran V. State of Kerala held that the applicant is not entitled to seek a copy of the report until and unless the council of ministers decides on the report or if the competent authority under the rule of business decided not to bring the report before the council.
Brief Facts of the Case
The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant is a government employee and the office bearer of a service organization. He made the application under the Right to Information Act, of 2005 before the Public Information Officer, Office of the chief secretary, government of Kerala for seeking a copy of the report submitted by the committee appointed by the government to review the contributory pension scheme. The application was received by the state public information officer, the General Administration department. Later on, they transferred the application to the State Public Information Officer of the finance department by Section 6(3) of the Act.
Thereafter, The SPIO informed the applicant that the Government is taking steps to thoroughly examine the report submitted by the Committee to review Contributory Pension and make a policy decision on the issue, and the applicant will be notified when a decision is made on the matter, and as and when the applicant asks for it. The applicant filed an appeal before the appellate authority of SPIO and GAD stating that he had not received any reply to his application.
Further, the applicant preferred an appeal before the commission. Thereby the commission directed the SPIO, GAD to provide the applicant with a copy of the report submitted by the committee appointed by the government to review the Contributory Pension Scheme to the applicant through the registered post within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The orders of the commission resulted in the two writ petitions before the High court of Kerala. One was filed by the applicant for direction to the SPIO, GAD(SC) to comply with the orders of the commission. Another writ petition was filed by the state of Kerala and the SPIO, seeking to quash the orders of the commission.
Submissions of the Counsels
The learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition filed by the state of Kerala contended that the second appeal which was filed by the applicant before the commission under Section 19(3) is not maintainable since the applicant had not exhausted his remedy of appeal before the appellate authority in the finance department under Section 19(1) of the Act. He also submits that the only council of ministers can consider cases raising questions of policy and administrative importance by the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala, framed in the exercise of the powers under Article 166 (2) and (3) of the Constitution of India. Further, he contended that the decision on the report may result in policy changes and changes to working conditions, it must be presented to the Council of Ministers. Because the report is the material on which the Council of Ministers must make a decision, it falls under the category of information exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(i) of the Act. He claims that the report can only be made public after the Council of Ministers makes a policy decision on the subject.
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the issue of the appeal's maintainability before the Commission was not raised by the Public Information Officers before that Forum and cannot be raised in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. He also stated his reply on the stand of the Public Information Officer by referring to rule 17 of the rule of business that the report will become part of Cabinet papers only after the Chief Minister decides to bring it before the Council, which stage has not yet occurred and thus the report is not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the Act. at last, he contended that the applicant is entitled to get a copy of the report and the public information Officer is statutorily liable to comply with the orders of the commission.
The counsel for the applicant supported his arguments by relying on the decision of the apex court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors, 1988 Latest Caselaw 42 SC and Union of India through, Director, Ministry of W.P.(C).18529 & 19962 of 2022 12 Personnel, Pg & Pension v. Central Information Commission and another
The learned counsel for the state information commission contended that only such papers which are brought before the Council and the Council's decision on them are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the Act. He cites section 8 (2) of the Act to argue that none of the exemptions declared under sub-section (1) of section 8 can obstruct access to information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
He further contended that the state must disclose information and that no law should be passed covertly. He relied on the decisions of the apex court in Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors, 1988 Latest Caselaw 42 SC, Yashwant Sinha Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director, 2019 Latest Caselaw 373 SC and ANURADHA BHASIN vs. UNION OF INDIA, 2020 Latest Caselaw 24 SC and another v. Union of India and others.
The high court of Kerala held that the exemption available to the cabinet papers referred to in Section 8(1)(i) will equally apply to potential cabinet papers not brought before the council.
The Commission's conclusion that the report can be delivered and then the government can make policy decisions cannot be sustained. The Commission's conclusion that the Contributory Pension Reviewing Committee operates solely with government funds and thus must provide a report cannot be sustained in light of the provisions of Section 8(1)(i) of the Act. It is finally declared by the court that the applicant is not entitled to get a copy of the report until the council of ministers decides on the report or until the competent authority decided not to bring the case before the council.
CASE TITLE- Jayachandran V. State of Kerala.
CASE DETAILS- WP(C) NO. 19962 OF 2022
CORAM- MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMA
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
