The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to proactively disclose information as mandated under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that no public authority, including the MCD, could be exempt from this obligation.
The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment. The petition sought directions to the MCD to upload its legislative records, house proceedings, standing committee resolutions, and other public documents on its official website in a time-bound manner.
The bench pulled up the civic body for its prolonged inaction and sarcastically remarked, “Thanks to you for undertaking this exercise after 20 years. We are so thankful.” The judges further questioned the delay in compliance, stating:
“What process? You are required to upload this information within 120 days and then on a regular interval. What have you been doing? This Act was passed in 2005. It is 20 years down the line.”
Emphasising the statutory duty cast by Section 4 of the RTI Act, the bench said the provision was designed to ensure minimum resort to formal RTI applications by encouraging suo motu disclosure by public authorities. “No exception in this regard can be granted to any authority including the MCD,” the court added.
The counsel for MCD submitted that the issue was under active consideration by the competent authority and that steps were underway at the corporation level. However, the court remained unconvinced and directed MCD to file an affidavit detailing specific steps taken for implementing Section 4 of the RTI Act.
The petitioner argued that in response to an RTI query, the MCD admitted it had not uploaded legislative records due to ongoing efforts to update its website following the merger of the erstwhile three municipal corporations.
It was also pointed out that MCD had cited Section 86 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to claim that no rules existed to publish such resolutions online. The court categorically rejected this defence, stating:
“Section 86 has nothing to do with dissemination of information and particulars to the public.”
The petitioner underscored the importance of the issue, saying it affects millions of Delhi residents. He also questioned why the MCD could not upload its upcoming budget on the website if it was already prepared.
The bench clarified that budget documents could only be uploaded after being passed by the House, and stressed that “we should achieve what is legally permissible and possible”.
Noting that it was forming only a prima facie opinion at this stage, the High Court scheduled the next hearing in April and reiterated the need for urgent compliance with the transparency requirements under the RTI framework.
