In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Sunny Sachdeva, who sought the imposition of penalties on officials for providing incorrect information in response to his Right to Information (RTI) applications. The court upheld the previous decisions, emphasizing that the information had been corrected and appropriate departmental actions were already underway.
Background of the Case
Sunny Sachdeva, the appellant, had filed a writ petition and a subsequent review petition in W.P. (C) No.10436/2022, seeking penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. He argued that the officials had provided incorrect information and caused a significant delay of three years in furnishing the correct details. The petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on March 12, 2024, and May 29, 2024, respectively, on the grounds that the correct information had been provided during the pendency of the writ petition and departmental actions had been initiated against the erring officials.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues in this case revolved around:
1. Whether the officials should be penalized under Section 20 of the RTI Act for providing incorrect information.
2. The appellant’s claim that the correct information was only provided after the court’s intervention.
3. The appellant’s dissatisfaction with the amended replies, which he claimed were not accepted to his satisfaction.
Court’s Decision
The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, delivered the judgment. The court highlighted several key points in its decision:
1. Provision of Correct Information: The court noted that the correct information had been provided to the appellant during the pendency of the writ petition, and departmental actions had been initiated against the officials involved.
2. Court’s Record: The court emphasized that as a Court of Record, it was bound by what the learned Single Judge had recorded during the hearing on March 12, 2024. The appellant’s contention that the amended replies were not to his satisfaction was addressed by the learned Single Judge, who found that the court had accurately recorded the proceedings.
3. Supervisory Powers of CIC: The court opined that the formation of opinion under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act is an exercise of the supervisory powers of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and not adjudicatory powers. The court further stated that the information seeker has no locus standi in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
4. Discretion of CIC: Citing the precedent set in Anand Bhushan vs. R.A. Haritash, the court held that the CIC was within its discretion not to impose a monetary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, especially since the information sought by the appellant had been provided.
Important Observations
The court made several important observations, including:
– “The information seeker has no locus standi in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act.”
– “The CIC was well entitled in its discretion not to direct imposition of monetary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, especially, when the information sought by the Appellant had been directed to be provided to him.”
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Parties: Sunny Sachdeva (Appellant) vs. ACP North RTI Cell and Another (Respondents)
Lawyers: Appellant in person; Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC, GNCTD (Through VC)
Case Number: LPA 638/2024 & C.M.No.40574/2024
