Mere pendency of the matter is not a bar to furnish details even if it pertains to the very same case pending before the Court

यह क माननीय मास उ यायालय ारा अपने नणय मे कहा गया है क सूचना अधकार
अधनयम क धारा 8 के लोक सूचना अधकारी ारा कये गये पयोग पर सत टपणी क है । ( W.
P. No 17677 / 2010 order date : 07/09/2020 मान. मास हाई कोट) माननीय उ
यायालय का वचारणीय तय नन है :
"9. The Apex Court, in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain and Others, reported in AIR 1975 SC 65 vividly discussed about the power of the Court to direct production of document and under what circumstances, a privilege can be claimed as contained under contemplated under Section 123 and 162 of the Evidence Act. While discussing the issue, it was specifically held that the people of this country have a right to know every public act, every thing that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its hearing. The Superior Court in the very same judgment further observed as follows:
"
... In a Government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor, which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security. To cover with veil of secrecy, the common routine business is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It is
generally desired for the purpose of parties and polities or personal self- interest of bureaucratic routine."
Even the Supreme Court clearly held that the office of Chief Justice will come under the purview of Right to Information (RTI), by observing that transparency does not undermine judicial freedom.
10. Normally, Courts , which come across several cases, reject the request of the claimant in respect of disclosure of documents, on the ground that Writ Petition is pending or on some other reasons. Mere pendency of the matter is not a bar to furnish details even if it pertains to the very same case pending before the Court. Unless or otherwise there is an interim order, then the
information need not be given for the present till the disposal of those matters. Now-a-days, the Officials are used to adopt a tactic answer in mechanical manner that the information sought for is exempted in the light of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, without actually ascertaining as to whether the information sought falls within the ambit of the said provision. Such Officers must be taught a lesson and in my view, they are unfit to hold the post of Public Information Officer or any other post in connection with the discharge of duties under RTI Act and they should be shown the doors, so that it will be a lesson for other Officers to act in accordance with the terms of the Act, failing which they may also face the similar or more consequences