The Punjab & Haryana High Court has raised concerns about cryptic and non-speaking orders passed by authorities under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Justice Vikas Bahl of the High Court has drawn attention to the violation of both the RTI Act's mandate and judgments issued by various High Courts and the Supreme Court, leading to the issuance of a set of guidelines to ensure transparent adjudication.
In a recent case, Rajwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, the High Court delved into the issue and laid down five essential elements that must be included in orders passed by first and second appellate authorities under the RTI Act. These elements are:
1. Clear specification of the points of information sought by the applicant as per the RTI application.
2. Point-wise replies to the information sought.
3. Categorical findings on whether information on each point has been provided or not, including the date of supply.
4. Recording the stand if the information is denied due to any legal provision or other reasons, accompanied by the authority's findings on the arguments presented.
5. Inclusion of any additional relevant observations based on the case's context.
Justice Bahl's order emphasized that these guidelines were vital to ensure the proper execution of the RTI Act and its principles of transparency and accountability.
The High Court's decision came in response to a petition filed by Rajwinder Singh, challenging an order of the State Information Commission (SIC), Punjab. Justice Bahl found that the earlier order was cryptic and lacked sufficient reasoning, leading the Court to direct the SIC to reconsider the RTI appeal. Stressing that the SIC, as a quasi-judicial authority, was obligated to issue reasoned orders, Justice Bahl sent the matter back to the RTI authority for re-adjudication.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
