The Division Bench of the Tripura High Court, comprising Chief Justice Mr. Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay has dismissed a PIL which was challenging the constitutional validity of Section 11 of RTI Act .( Sri Mrigankar Sekhar Dey v. Union of India and Ors.)
Background of the Case
The Petitioner has filed a PIL to quash and set aside Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the same being ultravires of the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct Respondent no 2 to disclose information that may be sought by the Petitioner regarding the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Kingdome or any such private set-up without alerting/giving notice to such party.
Submission of the Petitioner
The Counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that Section 11 of the RTI Act is a restricting provision since it required the private third party to give a consent before the Respondent no 2 can disclose information to the animal right activists and other public-spirited citizens such as the Petitioner about the conditions of the animals in such set-up.
He also relies on Articles 48A and 51A of the Constitution of India to highlight recognition of significance of protection of wildlife both as a Directive Principle of State Policy and Fundamental Duty of the citizens.
Judgment and Reasoning of the Court
The Court made a perusal of Section 11 of RTI Act and observed that Section 11 is applicable when information to be disclosed is 'relating to or supplied by a third party' and has been treated as confidential, by that third party. To know, whether information 'relating to or supplied by the third party' has been treated as confidential by that third party, Public Information Officer has to give notice. Public Information Officer cannot unilaterally decide, on its own, that the information, sought for by the applicant, is confidential or not.
The Court was also of the opinion that “Provisions of RTI cannot be read down to make privacy of individuals amenable to fishing inquiry and a fine balance is required to be maintained between public-interest and privacy/confidentiality of private party.”
The Court also pointed out that there are ample provisions under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 to enable the government machinery to address the concern of the Petitioner.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the PIL and held that Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 warrants no interference. No information regarding the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Kingdome or any such private set-up can be provided under the RTI act without the consent of such party.
Case Details
Case No. : WP(C)(PIL) No.05/2022
Petitioner: - Sri Mrigankar Sekhar Dey
Respondent: - Union of India and another
Judge: Chief Justice Mr. Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay
Picture Source :
