The Madhya Pradesh High Court has given an important and strict decision in the case of not providing the information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) and rejecting the appeal. A single bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal has imposed a fine of Rs 40,000 on the Information Commissioner while cancelling the order of dismissing the appeal.
Along with this, the court has given clear instructions that the entire information should be made available to the appellant absolutely free of cost, for which a huge amount of Rs 2.38 lakh was demanded from him. This decision is being considered a big step towards strengthening the RTI Act, as it will set a precedent against those cases where unnecessary fees are charged to avoid giving information or appeals are rejected without proper basis.
Fee of Rs 2.38 lakh sought for information in RTI
Neeraj Nigam, a filmmaker from Bhopal, had sought some important information from a government department under the Right to Information (RTI) on 26 March 2019. But despite the expiry of the stipulated time limit (30 days), no information was provided to him.
Under the RTI Act, it is mandatory for any applicant to be given the information sought within 30 days, but when this did not happen, Neeraj Nigam filed an appeal in the Information Commission. However, instead of solving his problem, the Information Officer instead put a condition of depositing a fee of Rs 2.38 lakh. This was a shocking case because under the RTI Act, only reasonable and fair information is required to be given.
When Neeraj Nigam did not get any relief from the Information Commission, he knocked the door of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The case was heard on Thursday in a single bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal. During this, the appellant’s advocate Dinesh Upadhyay presented strong arguments before the court. He told that the time limit for providing information under the RTI Act is 30 days, but the Information Officer deliberately harassed the appellant by not providing the information and then tried to unfairly charge a huge fee.
Advocate Dinesh Upadhyay also said that the Information Commission did not show any impartiality in this matter and rejected the appeal without any factual basis. He proved before the court through the dispatch register and certificates of the postal department that there was a deliberate delay on the part of the Information Officer and then an attempt was made to discourage the appellant by charging unnecessary fees.