Clarification on the use of ‘like’ in relation to ‘why’ under the Right to Information Act

C

This office memorandum addresses confusion arising from the inclusion of the word ‘like’ in a previous memorandum concerning a High Court of Bombay at Goa decision. It clarifies that the word ‘like’, when used before ‘why’ in the context of defining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, should be treated as deleted. The memorandum reiterates that the definition of information does not encompass reasons or justifications for actions, as these fall under the purview of adjudicating authorities, not public information officers. This clarification is to be brought to the notice of all concerned departments and bodies.

SOURCE PDF LINK :

Click to access 1_7_2009-IR20052011.pdf

Click to view full document content



No.1/7/2009-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training


North Block, New Delhi, Dated the 20th May, 2011.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Decision dated 03.04.2008 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.419 of 2007 in the case of Dr. Ceisa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission regarding information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Department’s Office Memorandum of even number dated 1st June, 2009 on the subject mentioned above (copy enclosed) and to say that some persons have observed that the High Court of Bombay at Goa in the above referred case did not use the word ‘like’ in the judgement and that inclusion of this word in the O.M. before the word ‘why’ is creating confusion. It is hereby stated that the word ‘like’ used before the word ‘why’ in line 3 of the O.M. may be treated as deleted. The relevant part of the judgement is again being quoted below:

“The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question ‘why’ which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.”

  1. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

(K.G. Verma)
Director
Tele: 23092158

  1. All the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.
  2. Union Public Service Commission/Lok Sabha Secretariat/Rajya Sabha Secretariat/Cabinet Secretariat/Central Vigilance Commission/President’s Secretariat/Vice-President’s Secretariat/Prime Minister’s Office/Planning Commission/Election Commission.
  3. Central Information Commission/State Information Commissions.
  4. Staff Selection Commission, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
  5. Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 10 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
  6. All officers/Desks/Sections, DOP&T and Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare.

Copy to: Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs.