In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, has ruled that the Ombudsman appointed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREG Act) falls under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The court upheld the directive of the Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner, which required the Ombudsman to disclose certain information sought by an RTI applicant.
Case Background
The case revolved around WPC No. 2874 of 2016, filed by the Ombudsman of the MGNREG Act, who also serves as the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the Bastar district. The petitioner challenged an order dated August 30, 2016, issued by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner. This order directed the Ombudsman to provide information requested by Birbal Ratre (Respondent No. 3) regarding complaints and inquiry reports filed under the MGNREG Act.
The petitioner contended that information held by the Ombudsman was confidential under the MGNREG Act and was exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The requested details included copies of all complaints filed with the Lokpal, inquiry reports, notesheets, and statements recorded during investigations between January 1, 2015, and August 2015.
Arguments Presented
– Petitioner’s Argument: Advocate Keshav Dewangan, representing the petitioner, argued that:
– The Ombudsman acts as a quasi-judicial body and is not obligated to provide information under the RTI Act.
– Section 8 of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of information received in a fiduciary relationship or that could impede investigations.
– The MGNREG Act explicitly requires confidentiality in complaints and investigations under Section 27.
– Respondent’s Argument: Advocates Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani (for Respondent No. 1) and C. Jayant K. Rao (for Respondent No. 2) maintained that:
– The MGNREG Act’s Instructions specifically include Ombudsmen within the RTI Act’s purview.
– Transparency is vital to ensuring accountability in the implementation of MGNREG schemes.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether the Ombudsman under the MGNREG Act is subject to the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Whether Section 8 of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of information held by the Ombudsman.
3. Compatibility of MGNREG Act’s confidentiality provisions with the RTI Act.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Guru analyzed the instructions issued under Section 27 of the MGNREG Act, particularly Instruction 15.1, which explicitly states that the Ombudsman is covered under the RTI Act. The court quoted:
“Once the special Act 2005, i.e., MGNREG Act, includes the Ombudsman under the RTI Act, the information sought must be disclosed.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on Section 8 of the RTI Act, the court noted:
“Section 8 does not provide exemptions to the acts of the Ombudsman or the information sought in this case.”
The court concluded that the State Information Commissioner’s order was legally valid and enforceable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Information Commissioner’s directive to disclose the information within 30 days.
