Supreme Court: Driving Licence Renewal After a Gap Will Not Take Effect From Expiry Date  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Quash Cheque Bounce Cases by Pre-Trial Inquiry Into Liability  ||  Supreme Court: Passport Renewal Cannot be Denied if Trial Court Has Permitted it Despite Pending Case  ||  SC: Delay in Depositing Sale Balance Does not Make Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Compete Fees Qualify as Deductible Revenue Expenditure under Income Tax Act  ||  Supreme Court: Section 311 CrPC Should be Invoked Sparingly, Only When Evidence is Vital  ||  J&K&L High Court: Successive Bail Applications Can Be Filed Even Without Change in Circumstances  ||  Kerala HC: Fresh Arbitration Notice is Required For Second Arbitration After Prior Award Set Aside  ||  NCLT Hyderabad: Mortgaging Property Without Lending Money Does Not Constitute Financial Debt  ||  Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation    

Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Information Officer, Department of Space - (Central Information Commission) (13 Jun 2016)

Juristic person’ has no right to seek information under RTI

MANU/CI/0139/2016

Right to Information

Companies seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot raise an RTI request under their own name, the Central Information Commission reminded.

The Respondent, Department of Space had denied information to the Appellant on the ground that it was not a natural person but a company. Before the CIC, Appellant contended that by recent High Court decisions, non-individual entities like companies and partnerships were entitled to receive information under the RTI Act.

Rejecting its claim, the Commission concluded that application made to Respondent was made not by Appellant’s Company Secretary, either in his position within company nor as an individual. Instead, the application, like the appeal before CIC, was in the name of the company. Section 3 of the Act permitted only citizens to seek information under the legislation, not juristic persons.

In earlier proceedings involving the same parties, the High Court had held the Respondent to be estopped from denying that the Appellant is entitled to receive information under the RTI Act. However, in the instant case, the Commission chose to not adhere to such a ‘hyper technical view’. Though persons employed with a company were not estopped from raising RTI requests, corporations did not comprise citizenry, it concluded.

Relevant : Section 3 Right to Information Act, 2005

Tags : RTI   CORPORATION   CITIZEN   APPLICATION   LEGAL ENTITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved