Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan allowed a writ petition and quashed a show cause notice issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) against officers of a public sector undertaking under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court held that the CIC had exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act by initiating penalty proceedings concerning policy matters. The court directed that "no further proceedings will be taken pursuant to the show cause notices" and set aside the impugned order entirely.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the CIC. The petitioners included a Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government and its former and current Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs). The respondent was an employee of the said undertaking, presently under suspension, and had earlier filed several proceedings against the petitioners including four writ petitions and numerous applications under the RTI Act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Highway Dispute | Says ‘Work Contract’ Claims Against MP Govt Bodies Must Be Referred to MP Arbitration Tribunal Under Statutory Mandate

The dispute arose from an RTI application dated 23.12.2021, in which the respondent sought a copy of the list of empaneled advocates representing the public authority before various courts. The CPIO replied on 07.01.2022, stating that the organization does not empanel advocates but engages them on a case-to-case basis, and therefore the information was not held by them.

Dissatisfied, the respondent filed a first appeal on 04.02.2022, claiming that the information was false. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal on 08.02.2022, affirming that no formal empanelment existed but also providing a compiled list of 603 advocates who had appeared on behalf of the public authority in various matters. The respondent subsequently filed a complaint with the CIC on 28.02.2022, alleging that the list was incomplete and that empanelment had been deliberately denied.

In their written submissions before the CIC, the public authority reiterated that no central panel existed and that advocates were appointed based on the requirements of each case. They also stated that the list of 603 advocates was compiled from internal systems as a goodwill gesture.

The CIC, in its impugned order dated 27.09.2023, issued show cause notices to the current and former CPIOs under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that public authorities must act in a non-discriminatory manner and that the lack of guidelines or a panel for engaging advocates raised issues of transparency and misuse of discretion. It stated that the CPIOs had evaded disclosure and failed to produce codified terms for engagement of advocates, which justified initiation of penalty proceedings.

In response, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. During the proceedings, it was submitted that the respondent had filed 160 RTI applications, 111 first appeals, and 48 second appeals, all directed against the public authority. The petitioners argued that the CIC had gone beyond its jurisdiction, which is limited to addressing non-furnishing of information already held by a public authority.

Two preliminary objections were raised by the respondent: first, that the CIC had not been impleaded as a party, and second, that the writ petition was premature as the CIC had merely issued a show cause notice. The court rejected both objections, noting that the CIC had initially been impleaded but was removed in accordance with established legal practice. As to the second objection, the court held that jurisdictional overreach justified judicial review even at the stage of show cause notice.

The court examined the statutory framework of the RTI Act, particularly Sections 2(f), 18, and 20. It stated "The jurisdiction under the statute is confined to furnishing of information maintained by the public authority, and a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act can be entertained only if the PIO has withheld information available with it."

Referring to a coordinate bench decision in Dhamendra Kr. Garg, the court noted "The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct...that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case." The court also cited judgments including Bar Council of Delhi v. CIC and Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, reinforcing the principle that penalties under the RTI Act are not warranted for bona fide errors or policy disagreements.

The court remarked that CIC's order rested on the desirability of empanelment, which was irrelevant under Section 20(1). It observed "CIC, however, proceeded on a completely different basis, with regard to the desirability of the practice of empanelling advocates. Its observations on this point were extraneous to the issue at hand."

With respect to the letter dated 26.02.2021 cited by the respondent as evidence of empanelment, the court stated "I do not find any support in this communication for the respondent's categorical assertion that HPCL maintains a panel of advocates." It noted that the mention of "empaneled advocate" was only in response to the RTI query and did not affirmatively assert the existence of a panel.

The court stated "Viewed from this perspective, the jurisdiction of CIC under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act can only arise if the PIO has denied a request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, which was in the possession of the public authority."

It further observed "Whatever the views of CIC on the policy of HPCL in this regard, the only question before it was whether 'information', as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been denied mala fide, or incorrect, incomplete or misleading information has been knowingly furnished."

The court also referred to Union of India vs. Ram Gopal Dixit, where CIC’s policy-related observations on MPLADS were held to be beyond its jurisdiction. It noted "The Ld. CIC has no jurisdiction to comment upon the utilization of funds... The scope of the RTI Act is only to ensure that information sought for under the RTI Act is dissipated..."

The High Court held that the CIC had acted beyond its jurisdiction and set aside the show cause notices. The court stated "In view of the above, the impugned order of CIC is held to be without jurisdiction and is set aside. No further proceedings before CIC are required..."

Also Read: Trademark Law | Delhi HC Declares 'Nutella' a Well-Known Mark | Slams Sale of Counterfeit Spread as Public Health Threat and Brand Dilution

It clarified that the respondent did not file an appeal under Section 19 but rather a complaint under Section 18, which was erroneously entertained by the CIC. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and all pending applications were disposed of.

The court concluded by stating, "For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order of CIC dated 27.09.2022 is set aside. No further proceedings will be taken pursuant to the show cause notices issued thereunder."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Mr. Devesh Dubey, Mr. Surya Prakash, Mr. Avinash Mathews, Advocates

For the Respondents: Dr. Puran Chand, Ms. Anita Chahal, Ms. Shashi, Advocates

Case Title: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Mr. Siddhartha Mukherjee

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5101

Case Number: W.P.(C) 13654/2023

Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan