Section 3 would therefore have to be read as positive recognition of the right in favor of citizens but not as a prohibition against non-citizens.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 15th February, 2023
Date of Pronouncement: 13th March, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 2670/2017 and CM APPL. 11599/2017
A S RAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr CK Bhatt
and Mr Ayush Bhatt, Advocates (M:
9891077497).
versus
DAWA TASHI ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
17. The question of imposition of penalty has to be considered in the light
of the legal issues that the CIC has determined, firstly, that the RTI
Applicant is a citizen and secondly that the RTI Act extends to non-citizens
as well.
18. Section 3 of the RTI Act reads as under:-
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 15 of 37
“3. Right to information.—Subject to the provisions of
this Act, all citizens shall have the right to
information.”
19. The RTI Act was preceded by the Right to Information Bill, 2004
(‘the Bill’) the Preamble of which reads as under:
“to provide for setting out the practical regime of right
to information for people to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in
order to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority, the constitution of a
Central Information Commission and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
20. Clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill read as under:
“3. Subject to the provisions of this Act, all
citizens shall have the right to information.
6. (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information
under this Act, shall make a request in writing or
through electronic means in English or in the official
language of the area in which the application is being
made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed,
to—
(a) the Public Information Officer of the
concerned public authority;
(b) the Assistant Public Information Officers,
specifying the particulars of the information sought by
him or her:
Provided that where such request cannot be made in
writing, the Public Information Officer shall render all
reasonable assistance to the person making the request
orally to reduce the same in writing.
(2) An applicant making request for information shall
not be required to give any reason for requesting the
information or any other personal details except those
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 16 of 37
that may be necessary for contacting him.
(3) Where an application is made to a public authority
requesting for an information, -
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely
connected with the functions of another public
authority,
the public authority, to which such application is
made, shall transfer the application or such part of it
as may be appropriate to that other public authority
and inform the applicant immediately about such
transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application
pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as
practicable but in no case later than five days from the
date of receipt of the application.”
21. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill are extracted
herein below:
“In order to ensure greater and more effective access to
information, the Government resolved that the Freedom
of Information Act, 2002 enacted by the Parliament
needs to be made more progressive, participatory and
meaningful. The National Advisory Council deliberated
on the issue and suggested certain important changes to
be incorporated in the existing Act to ensure smoother
and greater access to information. The Government
examined the suggestions made by the National Advisory
Council and others and decided to make a number of
changes in the law.
The important changes proposed to be incorporated,
inter alia, include establishment of an appellate
machinery with investigating powers to review decisions
of the Public Information Officers; penal provisions for
failure to provide information as per law; provisions to
ensure maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions,
consistent with the constitutional provisions, and
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 17 of 37
effective mechanism for access to information and
disclosure by authorities, etc. In view of significant
changes proposed in the existing Act, the Government
also decided to repeal the Freedom of Information Act,
2002. The proposed legislation will provide an effective
framework for effectuating the right of information
recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.”
22. The Notes on Clauses in respect of Clause 3 and 6 are extracted
herein below:
“Clause 3 seeks to confer on the citizens a right of
access to information held by public authorities.
Clause 6 specifies the manner in which requests may be
made by a citizen to the authority for obtaining the
information. It also provides for transferring the request
to the other concerned public authority who may hold
the information.”
23. A perusal of the above extracts from the Bill would show that there is
no uniformity in respect of who can exercise the right to information. The
Preamble uses the expression ‘for people’. Clause 3 uses the expression ‘all
citizens’. Clause 6 uses the expression ‘a person’. The statement of objects
and reasons is neutral to the person exercising the right. The notes on
clauses, however, are specific to the effect that the rights are conferred on
citizens and requests can be made by a citizen.
24. The Parliamentary Debates on the Right to Information Bill are also
educative in the present context. A perusal of the debates would show that
the expressions being used at the time when the Bill was moved, was for
securing access to information for people. During the debates, the words
‘people’ and ‘citizen’ were being used synonymously.
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 18 of 37
25. When the Bill was debated in the Rajya Sabha it is seen that terms
such as ‘citizen’, ‘people’, ‘persons’ etc. have been used interchangeably.
26. The Third Report on the Right to Information Bill, 2004 of the
Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel,
Public Grievances, Law and Justice, notes some important recommendations
of the National Advisory Council (‘NAC’), at the relevant time. One of the
recommendations was that the Right to information should be conferred on
all persons, whereas the Bill restricts the right to citizens only.
27. Even the views put forward by organizations/individuals and the
witnesses who deposed before the said Committee, as summarized in the
said report, suggest that the applicability of the RTI Act should not be
restricted to citizens but should cover non- citizens as well.
28. The Clause- by- Clause consideration of the Right to Information Bill,
2004 in its meetings held on 1st and 2nd March 2005, regarding Clause 3
reads as-
“Clause -3
14.The clause confers the right to information on all
citizens.
14.1The issue who can access information triggered an
animated debate. Witnesses in their deposition
favoured the idea of extending the coverage of the law
to all persons. Examples of some foreign jurisdictions
were placed before the committee, which permit the
right to access to be exercised by all persons.
14.2 The Committee took note that the Act of 2002
gives the access right to the citizens only. Not only this,
the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution
are exercisable by citizens and not by all. After some
discussion, the Committee favored retention of the
provision.
14.3The clause is adopted without any change.”
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 19 of 37
Thus, the language in clause 3 to the effect that the right is conferred on
citizens was not changed.
29. Annexure C to the meeting ‘Gist of the Suggestions received on the
Right to Information Bill, 2004 alongwith the Comments of the Ministry’ on
clause 3 reads -
Clause Suggestions Comments of Ministry
3.Right to
Information
The word ‘citizens’ be
substituted by the word
‘persons’
Government may accept
this amendment in view
of the similar laws being
implemented in other
countries
30. Finally, however, the Act which is now the Right to Information Act,
2005 has the following Preamble:
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of
right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in
order to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority, the constitution of a
Central Information Commission and State Information
Commissions and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established
democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption
and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the governed;
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests
including efficient operations of the Governments,
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 20 of 37
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy
of the democratic ideal;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for
furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to
have it.”
31. Further, Section 3 and Section 6 of the RTI Act read as-
“3. Right to information. - Subject to the
provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right
to information.
6. Request for obtaining information. - (1) A
person, who desires to obtain any information under
this Act, shall make a request in writing or through
electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official
language of the area in which the application is being
made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed,
to—
(a)the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of
the concerned public authority;
(b)the Central Assistant Public Information Officers
or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as
the case may be,
specifying the particulars of the information sought by
him or her:
Provided that where such request cannot be made in
writing, the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
shall render all reasonable assistance to the person
making the request orally to reduce the same in
writing.
(2) An applicant making request for information shall
not be required to give any reason for requesting the
information or any other personal details except those
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 21 of 37
that may be necessary for contacting him.
(3) Where an application is made to a public authority
requesting for an information, -
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely
connected with the functions of another public
authority,
the public authority, to which such application is
made, shall transfer the application or such part of it
as may be appropriate to that other public authority
and inform the applicant immediately about such
transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application
pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as
practicable but in no case later than five days from the
date or receipt of the application.”
32. A perusal of the RTI Act shows that the Preamble itself clarifies, in
contrast to the Bill, that the right to information is sought to be conferred
upon citizens. However, even in the RTI Act, the expressions used are not
consistent and uniform. The RTI Act uses the term “citizen” in the
Preamble.
33. In the backdrop of the above legislative material, there has clearly
been a struggle as to whether the Right to Information ought to be conferred
only upon citizens or on non-citizens as well. The Preamble uses the word
‘citizens’ and ‘informed citizenry’. Section 3 also confers the Right to
Information upon citizens. Section 4 requires public authorities in 4(1)(b)
(xv) to publish the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining
information. In the same breath, however, Section 4 also requires public
authorities to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies
or announcing the decisions which affect public. Public authorities also have
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 22 of 37
an obligation under Section 4(1)(d) to provide reasons for their
administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. In Section
4(2), the endeavor of public authorities has to be to take steps to ensure
maximum availability of information to the public so that the public has
minimum resort to the use of the procedure under the RTI Act to obtain
information. The form and manner of dissemination is also to be easily
accessible to the public under Section 4(3). Section 5 requires the CPIO’s
and State PIO’s to be designated for providing information to persons
requesting for information under the RTI Act, who shall deal with requests
and render reasonable assistance to persons seeking information under the
RTI Act.
34. Section 6 also prescribes the procedure for persons who desire to
obtain any information under the RTI Act or who make a request in writing
or through electronic means in such application process. The CPIO or the
SPIO have also to render all reasonable assistance to persons making the
request, in cases where the same cannot be made in writing. Section 7
prescribes the time limit for providing information as 30 days. However, the
proviso to Section 7(1) interestingly stipulates that if information is sought
in respect of life or liberty of a person, the same is to be provided within 48
hours of the receipt of the request. Section 7(3) records that intimation is to
be provided to the person making the request, where a decision is taken to
provide information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of
providing the information. If the Applicants are below poverty line such
persons shall not be charged any fee for the RTI-application in terms of the
proviso to Section 7(5). The reasons for rejection are to be communicated to
the persons making the request under Section 7(8). Section 8 provides all
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 23 of 37
kinds of information which is exempted from disclosure and uses the word
citizen in 8(1). The word person is used in Section 8(1)(e), (g), (j) and
Section 8(3).
35. An appeal can be filed under Section 19 by any person who does not
receive a decision within the timeline prescribed under section 7 or who is
aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO or SPIO. Further, Section 18 deals
with complaint from ‘any person’.
36. An analysis of the provisions of the Act does show that in certain
provisions, the word “citizen” is used and in a majority of provisions, the
word “person” is used. Clearly in the legislative history of the Right to
Information Bill leading to the RTI Act, there was a debate as to whether the
word citizen should be substituted with person or not. In respect of Clause 3,
the conferment of the Right to Information was retained without change i.e.
the word “citizen” was retained.
37. It is in the above background that the finding of the CIC, that the right
to information is available to non-citizens, would have to be considered.
38. The purpose of the Right to Information Act is to promote
transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities. The
statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that it was enacted with an
intention to ensure smoother and greater access to information.
39. The Constitution of India confers a large gamut of rights upon Indian
citizens, but there also exist a smaller bouquet of rights which are also
conferred and recognized in respect of non-citizens. Illustrative examples
would include travel related permissions, OCI card, Visas, Refugees,
Asylum seekers, property related issues concerning persons of Indian origin
who may not be citizens, extradition related information, etc. In all these
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 24 of 37
situations, non-citizens would have an interface with public authorities and
to put an absolute bar, would be contrary to the principles enshrined in the
Constitution of India which recognizes some rights of even non-citizens.
40. The RTI Act places enormous emphasis on access to information and
such information could also relate to the life or liberty of a person. Article
21 of the Constitution of India, which encompasses Right to Life, is
available not merely to citizens but to all persons. The Proviso to Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, contemplates information relating to life or liberty of a
person to be disclosed within 48 hours, thereby stressing on the need for
disclosing such information with alacrity and promptness. Considering that
the RTI Act also accords information relating to life or liberty an important
and distinct position, it would be inherently contradictory to hold that only
citizens are entitled to the Right to Information. Life or liberty could also
relate to non-citizens including foreigners, NRI’s, OCI card holders and
such other persons.
41. The importance of rights under Article 14 and 21 qua non citizens can
be appreciated in the light of the legal position enunciated in Durga Das
Basu’s, Commentary on the Constitution of India
1
, as under:
“The words 'any person' in Art. 14 of our
Constitution similarly extend the protection to
aliens while within the territory of India.
The use of the words "any person" in Art. 14, in the
context of legislation in general or executive action
affecting group rights is construed to mean persons
are similarly situated. The classification of such
persons for the purpose of listing the differential
treatment must, of course, be intelligible and
reasonable-the reasonableness being determined
1 Durga Das Basu, 2 Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th edn, 2007, vol. 2) pp. 1714 – 1715.
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 25 of 37
with reference to the object for which the action is
taken.
The benefit of Art. 14 is not confined to citizens
alone, but is available to any person within the
territory of India. It was held in the later case, that
every person is entitled to equality before law and
equal protection of the laws. So also, no person
can be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.
Thus, the State is bound to protect the life and
liberty of every "human being" be he a citizen or
otherwise.
The International Covenants and Declaration as
adopted by the United Nations have to be respected
by all signatory States and the meaning given to the
provision of these Declaration and Covenants have
to be such as would help in effective
implementation of those rights. The applicability of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
principles thereof may have be read, if need be,
with the domestic jurisprudence. Our Constitution
guarantees all the basic and fundamental human
rights set out in Universal Declaration of Human
Rights 1948, to its citizens and other person. The
chapter dealing with fundamental rights is
contained in Part III of the Constitution. The
purpose of Part III is to safeguard the basic human
rights from the vicissitudes of political controversy
and to place them beyond the reach of the political
parties, who, by virtue of the, majority, may came
to form the Government at the Centre or in the
State. The fundamental rights are available to all
"citizens" of the country, but a few of them are also
available to all person....... The meaning of the
word "life" cannot be narrowed down. According to
the tenor of the language of article 21, it will be
available not only to every citizen of the country,
but also to a "person" who may not be a citizen of
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 26 of 37
the country. Such a person is also entitled to the
protection of article 21, even though not a citizen."
What equal protection means in the case of aliens
is that in matters in which aliens are under no
constitutional disability, the State may not
discriminate against a person simply on the
ground that he is an alien. [See, further Entry 17,
List 1, 7th Sch., post].”
42. Further, the Supreme Court in CA No. 639 of 2000 (Arising out of
SLP (C) No. 16439 of 1998) titled ‘The Chairman Railway Board and Ors
v. Chandrima Das and Ors.’ reiterates this position. The operative portion
of the said judgement reads as-
“…29. The fundamental rights are available to all the
“Citizens” of the country but a few of them are also
available to “persons”. While Article 14, which
guarantees equality before law or the equal protection
of laws within the territory of India, is applicable to
“person” which would also include the “citizen” of
the country and “non-citizen” both, Article 15 speaks
only of “citizen” and it is specifically provided therein
that there shall be no discrimination against any
“citizen” on the ground only of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them nor shall any citizen
be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction or
condition with regard to access to shops, public
restaurants, hostel and places of public entertainment,
or the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and
place of public resort on the aforesaid grounds.
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 15, is
therefore, restricted to “citizen”. So also, Article 16
which guarantees equality of opportunity, in matters of
public employment is applicable only to “citizens”. The
fundamental rights contained in Article 19, which
contains the right to “Basic Freedoms “, namely,
freedom of speech and expression; freedom to assemble
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 27 of 37
peaceably and without arms; freedom to form
associations or unions; freedom to move freely
throughout the territory of India; freedom to reside and
settle in any part of the territory of India and freedom to
practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation,
trade or business, are available only to “citizens” of the
country.
…35. On this principles, even those who are not
citizens of this country and come here merely as
tourists or in any other capacity will be entitled to the
protection of their lives in accordance with the
Constitutional provisions. They also have a right to
“Life” in this country. Thus, they also have the right to
live, so long as they are here, with human dignity, just
as the state is under an obligation to protect the life of
every citizen in this country, so also the State is under
an obligation to protect the life of the persons who are
not citizens.”
43. In this context, it would be relevant to also consider the decision of
the Supreme Court in ‘Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. v. State of
Manipur & Ors., (2011) 15 SCC 1’ where the Supreme Court, also notices
the difference between the terminology used in Sections 3 and 6 of the Act.
Under Section 3 of the Act, the Right to Information is conferred upon all
citizens. However, under Section 6, a person who desires to obtain
information can file a request. The Supreme Court after noticing this
distinction observes as under:
“23. Right to Information has also been statutorily
recognised under Section 3 of the Act as follows:
3. Right to information.- Subject to the provisions of this
Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.
24. Section 6 in this connection is very crucial.
Under Section 6 a person, who desires to obtain any
information under this Act, shall make a request in
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 28 of 37
writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi
or in the official language of the area in which the
application is being made, accompanying such fee as
may be prescribed. Such request may be made to the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, or to the
Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State
Assistant Public Information Officer. In making the said
request the applicant is not required to give any reason
for obtaining the information or any other personal
details excepting those which are necessary for
contacting him.
25. It is quite interesting to note that even though
under Section 3 of the Act right of all citizens, to
receive information, is statutorily recognised but
Section 6 gives the said right to any person. Therefore,
Section 6, in a sense, is wider in its ambit than Section
3.”
The above decision of the Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that
Section 6 is wider in its scope and ambit than Section 3 of the RTI Act.
44. The Calcutta High Court in ‘Dr. Soumen Paul v. Union of India &
Ors’ [2002 SCC Online Cal 62: (2002) 3 Cal LT 329 : (2003) 1 Civ LT
502] decided on 6
th February 2002 held that-
“2. In this writ application it is the contention of the
petitioner that despite preferring a revision
under Section 15 of the Citizenship Act, 1955
challenging the decision refusing the grant of Indian
citizenship as passed under Section 5(1)(a) of the
Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
said Act') as communicated by the District Magistrate,
South 24-Parganas by his communication order dated
4th June, 2001 as yet, nothing has been communicated
to the petitioner about the fate of such revision. At the
same time the petitioner has assailed the communication
of the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South) whereby
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 29 of 37
and whereunder it was only communicated that the
petitioner's application for grant of Indian citizenship
was rejected. The learned advocate for the Union of
India is present and he frankly submits that no
instruction has been received from his clients and
accordingly he cannot assist the Court. From the
impugned communication of the District Magistrate, 24-
Parganas (South) appearing at page 50 of annexure P-5
against which the revision was filed by the petitioner
under the said Act, it appears that no reason was
assigned as to why the petitioner's application for grant
of citizenship in terms of Section 5(1)(a) of the said Act
was rejected. Section 5(1)(a) of the said Act only
provides satisfaction of two conditions for grant of the
citizenship, namely, the person must be of Indian origin
and secondly a continuous stay of five years. In the
instant case, it appears from the submission that the
petitioner's parents were of Indian origin as they were
born in undivided India. After partition, parents
remained in Pakistan where the present petitioner was
born on 30th December, 1955. About 5 years continuous
stay in India, it appears from submission of petitioner
that taking into account of time as consumed to submit
M. Phil thesis as a scholar of University of Pune being
duly authorised to do such under Government of India's
Scholarship Scheme, 1983-84 and the award of Ph.D
from said University in the year 1989 as well as the
period of stay till date of application for grant of
citizenship, petitioner has satisfied said condition.
Hence, for adjudication of any application under the
said Act for citizenship the concerned authorities are
required to satisfy on those two points. But very
surprisingly in the instant case though the petitioner
earlier moved this writ Court about the inaction of the
authorities, no order assigning the reason rejecting the
prayer of the petitioner has been served. Right to know
the reason is a basic fundamental right. Reliance may
be placed to the judgment in the case Ravi S. Naik v.
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 30 of 37
Union of India and Ors., wherein it has been settled
that right to information and right to be informed
reason, have its strong ground in terms of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, in the case Reliance
Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express
Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd..reported in AIR 1989
SC 190, the Apex Court on application of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India held that right to know is
available to the person concerned who would suffer
any decision. In the instant case though petitioner is a
non-citizen but still Article 21 of the Constitution of
India is applicable in his case with full vigour. In terms
of the Apex Court judgment passed in the
case Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. Chandrima
Das (Mrs.) and Ors.,reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465
wherein while interpreting the word 'life' as appearing
in Article 21 of the Constitution of India qua the factum
of payment of compensation of rape victim of a
Bangladeshi citizen in Railway Yatri Nivas, Howrah, the
Court held that in terms of the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, the life of the particular lady was
disturbed and/or deprived of without any fair procedure
of law. Applying such test, in the instant case,
accordingly the authorities concerned were bound to
assign the reason to the petitioner. With reference to the
decision as reached by them rejecting the application
for citizenship”.
45. In contrast, the Madras High Court recently observed in W.P.(MD)
No. 19811 of 2013 and M.P (MD) No. 1 of 2013 titled ‘K.K.C.
Balaganesan v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Limited & Ors’. [Decided on 31.01.2023] that the
observation of the Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner
(supra)is merely an observation and the same cannot be read in isolation.
The Madras High Court goes on to hold as under:
“21. When the Hon'ble Apex Court had traced the right
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 31 of 37
to receive information is under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India, then it could be safely presumed
that the persons, who are the citizens of India, alone
are entitled to seek information, since the right under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is only
available to a citizen of India.
22. Further, if the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the application under Section 6 of
the Act cannot be restricted only to the citizens
as adumbrated in Section 3, then would render Section
3 of the Act otiose/redundant. It is the cardinal
principles of interpretation of statutes that while
reading a statute, a provision of the statute cannot be
made otiose or redundant. I am fortified to come to the
aforesaid conclusion by placing reliance of the very
same judgment (AIR 2012 SCC 864). The relevant
paragraph in the aforesaid judgment is extracted
hereunder:
"It is well known that the legislature does not waste
words or say anything in vain or for no purpose. Thus,
a construction which leads to redundancy of a portion
of the statute cannot be accepted in the absence of
compelling reasons.
In the instant case there is no compelling reason to
accept the construction put forward by the
respondents.
23. Hence, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that even a non citizen would
be entitled to information under the Act, in my view, is
untenable. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain the
intention of the statute and to whose benefit such a
statute has been enacted. The statute could be enacted
for a class of persons for their benefit. In the present
case, the Act has been enacted to provide information
to a citizen alone. Any other person, who is not a
citizen of India, cannot invoke the provisions of the Act
and seek information.
24. The reason I come to this conclusion is clearly
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 32 of 37
elucidated in the Preamble of the Act, which postulates
that the democracy requires an informed citizenries and
the Act was only to provide for furnishing of certain
information to the citizen, who desires to have it. In that
context, I find no infirmity in the impugned
communication of the third respondent calling upon the
petitioner to substantiate that he is the citizen of India. It
is not known as to why the petitioner is shying away to
produce such information.”
46. The Calcutta High Court in Dr. Soumen Paul (supra) clearly holds
that information can be disclosed to non-citizens. The Supreme Court also
notes in the Chief Information Commissioner (supra) that Section 6 is
wider in its scope than Section 3. On the other hand, the decision of the
Madras High Court in K.K.C. Balaganesan (supra) holds that only citizens
are entitled to information. This Court respectfully disagrees with the
Madras High Court. There are several areas where even non-citizens such as
Tibetans in the present case, who was serving a teacher in India in a Tibetan
School, seek information. It cannot be held that there is a bar on such
persons to such information. Thus, the CIC was right in holding that there is
no absolute prohibition if the authority deems it fit to disclose the
information.
47. Public authorities as defined in the RTI Act, in India, deal with
citizens and non-citizens. While as a general proposition, it would be correct
to hold that the right to information is conferred upon all citizens, it cannot
also be held that there is an absolute prohibition on disclosure of information
to non-citizens. In the case of such public authorities dealing with issues
concerning non-citizens, if there is an inaction or lack of transparency in
their dealings, it cannot be held that such a non-citizen would be disabled
from seeking the said information under the RTI Act. It would be left to the
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 33 of 37
discretion of the authority concerned to decide depending upon the facts,
situation and the surrounding circumstances as to whether the information
deserves to be disclosed or not. Creating an absolute bar would be contrary
to the purpose and object of the RTI Act itself, and such an absolute bar
cannot be read into the RTI Act.
48. Restricting the Right to Information to only citizens in the light of
both terms i.e., citizens and persons being used in the RTI Act without any
discernible distinction would be contrary to sprit of the Constitution as well
as to the RTI Act. The view of the Parliamentary Committee which
discussed the Bill and favored retention of the right only to citizens appears
to have been based on a misconception that Fundamental Rights under the
Constitution are only available to citizens, which was a wrong premise.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Right to Information ought to be
available to citizens and non-citizens depending upon the kind of
information which is sought and the recognition of the rights guaranteed to
such class of persons under the Constitution of India.
49. The safeguards/exceptions provided in the RTI Act, would apply qua
any information which is sought, by either citizens or non-citizens in this
context. Whenever information is sought by non-citizens, considering that
the rights conferred under Section 3 is positively upon citizens, it would be
on the discretion of the authorities to disclose such information or not.
50. Section 3 would therefore have to be read as positive recognition of
the right in favor of citizens but not as a prohibition against non-citizens.
51. There is a second aspect in the present case. The RTI Applicant was a
Tibetan national and stated as such in his RTI application. But he also
claimed citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The PIO however,
VERDICTUM.IN
2023/DHC/001799
W.P.(C) 2670/2017 Page 34 of 37
proceeded on the basis that Section 3 of the RTI Act would be mandatory, in
terms of assuming that only citizens are entitled to information under the
RTI Act. The PIO also considered the RTI Applicant’s stand declaring
himself to be a Tibetan national. The question before this Court is not
whether the RTI-Applicant was entitled to information or not. The
information has already been directed to be provided and has, in fact, been
provided by the CTSA before the CIC, as per the Petitioner. Certain
grievances have been raised by the RTI Applicant that the order of the CIC
has not been complied with and that he is not satisfied with the information
provided. If so, the RTI Applicant is free to avail of his remedies in
accordance with law.