RAMESH SAINI Vs. RAJ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a student of B.Tech. and his grievance is that despite application being submitted by him under Right to Information Act on 29.12.2011 still no orders have been passed by the authority and that is causing great prejudice to the petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL placed reliance upon judgment dt.09.08.2011 of Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011(8) SCC 497) and submits that it is otherwise required to provide for inspection for maintaining transparency in the procedure adopted by the respondent. Operative part of the judgment (supra) is reproduced ad infra : "The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and 52 eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.