In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that a public authority cannot insist on a written application with signatures for an RTI (Right to Information) request made through email if the applicant has confirmed their identity. The judgment came in the case of Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. State Information Commission, Haryana & Others (CWP-36226-2018), delivered by Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta, had sought certain information via email from a university in Haryana by depositing the prescribed fee in the bank account of the respondent public authority. However, the university refused to supply the information, insisting that the petitioner submit a written application bearing his signature. When his request was denied, Dr. Gupta approached the State Information Commission, Haryana, which also upheld the university’s stand. Dissatisfied with the decision, Dr. Gupta moved the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which lays down the procedure for requesting information. The primary legal issues addressed by the court were:
Whether a written application with signatures is mandatory for an RTI request made through email.
Whether the university’s requirement of a signed application was justified under the law.
Court’s Observations and Decision
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi ruled in favor of the petitioner, making key observations regarding the RTI process:
“Though the University has a right to be vigilant that no one else uses the email address of another person, once the person who has sent the email confirms his identity and requests the supply of the information, the demand for a written application along with signatures is not envisaged under Section 6 of the RTI Act.”
The court held that the petitioner’s physical presence before the court seeking the information proved beyond doubt that he was the genuine applicant. Therefore, imposing an additional requirement of a written and signed application was unnecessary and contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act.
Directions Issued by the Court
In light of its findings, the court directed the university to provide the requested information to Dr. Gupta within 30 days, as mandated under the RTI Act. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Legal Representation
For the Petitioner: Advocate Sardavinder Goyal
For the State Information Commission: Additional Advocate General Gaurav Jindal
For the University: Advocate Puneet Gupta
