[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Nandkishor Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15294-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 171 of 2026
Nandkishor Singh S/o Ramashish Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Village-
Deoridih Police Station Torwa District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Ministry Of Home
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Station House Officer Police Station Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
VED
02/04/2026
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Date: 2026.04.03 Constitution of India calling in question the legality and validity of the
16:11:18 +0530
impugned rejection letter dated 17.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3,
whereby the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 has been denied by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the
Act.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing and setting aside the
impugned rejection letter dated 17.03.2026
issued by Respondent No.3.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the Respondents to provide the
information sought by the petitioner in his RTI
application dated 23.02.2026.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief, as it may
deems fit and appropriate."
3. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are
that, the petitioner, father of accused Rajrishi Singh, has filed the
present writ petition challenging the impugned rejection letter dated
17.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the information sought
by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the criminal
antecedents of the complainant, namely Babita Dewangan, in
connection with Crime No. 138/2025 registered at Police Station Torwa,
District Bilaspur, has been denied by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Act
on the ground that the same constitutes personal information. It is the
case of the petitioner that his son is in judicial custody in the aforesaid
crime and the said information is necessary for the purpose of effective
defence in the pending sessions trial, particularly when the matter is
fixed for cross-examination of the complainant; however, despite the
relevance of the information, the respondents have arbitrarily rejected
the RTI application, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection
letter dated 17.03.2026 is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, as
the respondents have mechanically invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the Right
to Information Act, 2005 without proper application of mind. It is
contended that the information sought pertains to the criminal
antecedents of the complainant, which forms part of public record and
cannot be treated as "personal information" so as to deny its disclosure.
He would further submit that the said information is essential for
ensuring a fair trial of the petitioner's son, particularly when the case is
at the stage of cross-examination of the complainant, and non-
disclosure thereof would cause serious prejudice to the defence,
thereby infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the
impugned rejection letter has been passed strictly in accordance with
law by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as
the information sought by the petitioner pertains to the alleged criminal
antecedents of a third party, which falls within the ambit of "personal
information" and is exempted from disclosure. It is contended that there
is no larger public interest involved in the present case so as to warrant
disclosure of such information and the petitioner cannot seek to
indirectly collect material for defence in a criminal trial by invoking the
provisions of the RTI Act.
******* It is further submitted that the present writ petition is not
maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory alternative remedy
available to the petitioner under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, which
provides a complete mechanism of appeal against the order passed by
the Public Information Officer. Learned State counsel would submit that
as per Section 19(1), any person aggrieved by such decision may
prefer an appeal within thirty days before an officer senior in rank to the
Public Information Officer, and thereafter, under Section 19(3), a
second appeal lies before the State Information Commission within
ninety days. It is thus contended that without exhausting the said
statutory remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Hon'ble
Court, and on this ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned
rejection of the petitioner's RTI application has been made by invoking
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that
the information sought pertains to personal information of a third party.
8. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the
controversy, as an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available to
the petitioner under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, which provides a
complete mechanism for redressal of grievance against an order
passed by the Public Information Officer, including first appeal before
the senior officer and second appeal before the State Information
Commission.
9. It is well settled that when a statutory remedy is available, the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be
invoked, unless exceptional circumstances are made out, which are
absent in the present case.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being premature, is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
