CASE LAWS FOR “RIGHT TO INFORMATION” ➢ The Supreme Court in Central Information Commission v. State of Manipur, held that the right to information is intrinsic part of fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. But such right is subject to reasonable restrictions under article 19(2). The Karnataka High Court in the case of H.E. Rajashekarappa v. State Public Information Officer, has held that the personal information of officials working for public authorities is not within the ambit of section 2(f). Following the trend, the Madras High Court in V. Madhav v.Tamil Nadu Information Commission, held that the personal information sought cannot be denied if authorities concerned are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. ➢ In the case of Sh. Priyavadan H Nanavati v. Institute of Chartered Accounts of India the applicant had requested for a copy of the complaint file against him before ICAI. Before this complaint could be registered the ICAI had returned the complaint to the complainant to rectify defects etc. preparatory to its registration for the enquiry to commence. Therefore, the point to be established was whether the information which respondent have returned to the person who filed it can be said to be 'held' or be 'under the control of the respondent in terms of section 2(j) of the RTI Act. The expression 'held' or 'under the control of' used in the subsection 2(j) of the Act are significant. These expressions mean that information can be said to be under the control of a public authority only when such public authority holds that information authoritatively and legitimately. Information which a public authority might receive casually or, which it had returned to its point of origin for supplying omissions, will not qualify to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority. The present information solicited by the appellant falls in this category. Having been returned by the public authority the respondents herein, to its originator, the information cannot be said to be under the control of the respondents. ➢ Poorna Prajna Public School v. Central Information Commission Delhi High Court, held that the term ‘held by or under the control of any public authority’ in section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term ‘information’ as defined in section 2(f). The said expression used in section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. ➢ Saidur Rehman v. CIC- CIC has given a crucial decision that the RTI Act, 2005 is not about seeking answers or asking questions. It is more about inspection of documents or records or taking notes, extracts or certified copies of the documents/records. Although the definition of the right to information is an inclusive one but still it has to be information available and existing. It must also be either held by or under the control of the concerned public authority. A non-Existing information is no information. Similarly, in the name of seeking information, one cannot demand what is not there on the record. The Commission held that the CPIO cannot answer questions regarding either interpretation of law or as regards the correctness or otherwise of a decision passed by the Commission in connection with a judicial proceeding. The CPIO cannot provide what he does not have and since he did not have any information concerning the issues raised by the appellant, he was left with no other alternative but to inform the applicant that no such information is available in this regard. ➢ Mahavir Singhvi v. Ministry of External Affairs - The Commission directed the appellant to ask for copies of documents containing the information, he desires and not to seek opinions through a questionnaire. ➢ In Amol Ganpat Vasai (W) v. Rajendra (DIT Inv. II), S.S.N. Moorthy (CPIO, DGIT Inv.) and Appellate Authority Mumbai - The Commission observed that the queries of the appellant were in the nature of a questionnaire based on nothing more than his surmise (guesses)and conjecture (assumptions). Thus, the Commission held that public authority was not obliged to answer the said questionnaire. The Commission also held that the PIO is required to ‘provide information’ which is available in any form with his/her office rather than giving her ‘personal opinions’ on the question asked by the requester.