S.D. Windlesh v. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (24 Nov 2015)

RTI is beneficial legislation cannot be used to harass

MANU/DE/3819/2015

Right to Information

The Delhi High Court rejected claims of a Petitioner claiming willful non-compliance by the police in not providing him information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Among others, the Petitioners had asked to be provided a monthly account for the past ten years of cognizable offences received and FIRs recorded by each police station in the North-East district of Delhi. In reply, the Office of Deputy Commissioner had allowed Petitioner to spend up to one month to inspect the relevant record. The High Court agreed with the reply, noting that the police was not required to maintain a record such as the one called for, only the information therein. It raised doubts about the Petitioner’s credentials as an “RTI activist”, asking “why does [he] not sit down in the police station”. It reiterated that “obligation of the public authority under Section 4 of the Act has expressly been made subject to cost effectiveness and to the extent possible”; in the instant case, fulfilling Petitioner’s request would have required diverting several police personnel from their duties.

Relevant : Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay MANU/SC/0932/2011 Prem Lata Vs. Central Information Commission MANU/DE/0540/2015 Section 4 Right to Information Act, 2005 Act

Tags : RTI POLICE FIR RECORD PERUSE