RTI Cannot Be a Tool for Harassment’: Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Disclosure Orders on Third-Party Data
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has set aside orders issued by the State Information Commission, Punjab, directing the disclosure of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005. A Single Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Seth held that the information requested amounted to third-party data protected under statutory exemptions. The Court found that “information being sought by the respondent No.2-complainant, cannot be given.” Both connected writ petitions were allowed, and the orders passed by the State Information Commission were quashed.
The petitioner, Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., challenged two orders issued by the State Information Commission, Punjab, in response to applications made by respondent No.2. The Court disposed of both petitions through a common order as they raised similar legal questions. The petitioner objected to the orders directing the disclosure of specific records related to its business transactions and employee details.
In the first petition (CWP No. 13910-2014), the petitioner challenged the Commission’s order dated 03.07.2014. The petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 had filed an application dated 13.02.2014 seeking wide-ranging information concerning the sale and auction processes of molasses, bagasse, and press mud, including sensitive documents involving third parties. The requested information extended to “the sale and the auction of the Molasses, Baggasse and Press Mud including the details of the minimum bidders,” as well as “copies of all the orders placed by the Central and the State Government for the sale of the molasses, notice inviting tenders, the bidders and the documents received by them, the document showing the deposit of the earnest money qua the said tenders and the award of the contract to the successful bidders.”
The petitioner submitted that the application amounted to an attempt to harass the Cooperative Society by requesting sensitive third-party data. It was further submitted that the respondent No.2-complainant was initially not served at the address provided and was ultimately served through publication.
In the second petition (CWP No. 5085-2015), the petitioner challenged additional orders dated 13.11.2014 and 09.09.2014, relating to a separate request by respondent No.2 seeking certified copies of records regarding employees, work activities, and expenditures incurred by the petitioner from 01.04.2009 onward. The petitioner submitted that this information pertained to internal records and personal information of employees, which could not be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Justice Harsimran Singh Seth reviewed both petitions and the statutory framework governing disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court considered whether the information sought could be legally released under the provisions of the Act. Referring to the scope of permissible disclosures under the Act, the Court recorded that “The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enacted to ensure the transparency of work within the Departments. The same does not give a right to anyone to seek information with a motive, which amounts to harassing the employees of the Department.”
The Court examined the application submitted by respondent No.2 in the first petition and noted that “this prima facie shows that a third party information was being sought from the petitioner-Cooperative Society as to who competed for the purchase of the Molasses, Baggasse and Press Mud.” It was further recorded that “as per the settled principle of law, third party information as to who had submitted the bid and what were the documents submitted by the said person, cannot be given under the RTI Act, 2005 as the same is barred under Rule 8.”
Justice Seth referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011), noting that “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 Court further quoted that “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 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 Court noted that the Act should not be misused, recording that “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.”
With respect to the second petition, where employee-related information was sought, the Court considered the judgment in Canara Bank Rep. By its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam and another (Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009), which applied the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande’s case. Justice Seth referred to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Canara Bank judgment, where it was held that “the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”
The Court recorded that “the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force.” It found that the information sought by the complainant in the second petition involved personal data of individual employees which is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, and no overriding public interest had been demonstrated to justify disclosure.
Additionally, the Court remarked that “the matter is pending in this Court for the last 10 years and no efforts have been made qua upholding the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure P-4) by the respondent No.2-complainant which shows that even the respondent No.2-complainant is not interested in pursuing the present remedy.”
The Court allowed both petitions and set aside the impugned orders issued by the State Information Commission, Punjab. Justice Seth recorded that “the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure P-4) in CWP No.13910 of 2014 and in CWP-5085-2015, the impugned orders dated 13.11.2014 (Annexure P-5) and 09.09.2014 (Annexure P-3) are set aside.”
The Court concluded the proceedings by recording, “The present writ petitions are allowed in above terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate
For the Respondents: Akshita Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Case Title: Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The State Information Commission, Punjab and another
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:030652
Case Number: CWP-13910-2014 & CWP-5085-2015
Bench: Justice Harsimran Singh Seth
[Read/Download order]
