Chennai: The Madras High Court yesterday rectified a portion its own order of September 18 in which it had said the person who seeks information under RTI should state the reason for doing so.
“An applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him,” the bench, comprising Justices N Paul Vasanthakumar and K Ravichandrababu, said.
The bench noticed it had made an error in its September 18 order and rectified it today saying Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, does not say that the person seeking information has to submit details.
On September 18, the court had quashed an order of the Central Information Commission, Delhi,directing it to give information to one B Bharathi of Puducherry on some administrative matters of the judiciary, saying it cannot be given as per various orders of the Supreme Court and High Court.
“Furnishing of those information cannot be brought under the purview of the RTI Act as such information pertain to the internal intricate functioning/administration of High Court and such information has no relationship with any public activity or interest,” the bench had said.
“Doing so would hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the institution, unnecessarily warranting scrupulous litigations”, it had said and set aside the matter.
The bench had given the order on a petition filed by the Public Information Officer who is also the Registrar.
Bharathi had made applications under the RTI Act, seeking various informations, including action taken on his complaint against Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, details of recruitment rules for the post of Registrar General of High Court and details of action taken on earlier application regarding the appointment of Registrar General.
The PIC had said Bharathi was called upon to peruse files on action taken on his complaint against CMM. He was also informed that the complaint was closed.
Bharathi had filed a petition on these matters for which the Court Registrar (Vigilance) also informed him on August 21 about the action taken on his complaint against the CMM.
He had sought the contents of the file and minutes of the judges meeting which was refused to be given.
