On Monday, the Delhi High Court invalidated a directive from the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had mandated the release of information concerning the PM CARES Fund in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the case, granted approval to the petition filed by the Income Tax authority, which contested the Central Information Commission's order dated April 27, 2022. The court emphasized that the information requested by the RTI applicant should have adhered to the procedure outlined in Section 11 of the RTI Act. This section necessitates providing notice to a third party, in this instance, the PM CARES Fund, prior to the disclosure of information.

The court underscored that the Central Information Commission (CIC) lacked jurisdiction to mandate the disclosure of information specified in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the court highlighted that even if the CIC did possess jurisdiction, the omission of notifying the PM CARES Fund about the hearing would have invalidated the order.

The solitary judge on the bench emphasized the importance of obtaining satisfaction from the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner before disclosing information under Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The court expressed the opinion that the contentment of these specific authorities cannot be delegated to any other entity under a general act when it comes to revealing the requested information.

Girish Mittal, the respondent in the case and the RTI applicant, had sought information pertaining to an exemption application under the Income Tax Act. This request extended to details about the PM CARES Fund and other applications filed within the period from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

The court noted that the CIC order, which refused information on other exemption applications but directed disclosure for the PM CARES Fund, was inconsistent and contrary to the law.

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act provides an exemption for information that concerns personal details, the revelation of which lacks connection to any public activity or interest, or would result in an unjustified intrusion into an individual's privacy. The petitioner argued that the information in question pertained to a third party, specifically the PM CARES Fund, which operated as a registered trust. Consequently, the petitioner contended that the contested order should not have been issued without affording the opportunity for a hearing to the concerned party.

Conversely, the respondent in the petition countered by asserting that the PM CARES Fund was an entity owned and governed by the Government of India. In the current matter, the respondent's request for information was initially declined by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). The basis for rejection was that the sought-after information was deemed personal and unrelated to any public activity or interest. Additionally, it was argued that disclosing such information would result in an unjustified invasion of an individual's privacy.

The First Appellate Authority upheld the initial rejection, asserting that the PM CARES Fund did not fall under the jurisdiction of the RTI Act. Subsequently, the respondent escalated the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC). However, the CIC declined to furnish information regarding other exemption applications, citing the disclosure of personal details concerning various third-party entities as a reason.

Nevertheless, the CIC instructed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to respond to the respondent, elucidating the factual status regarding the availability of documents outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the RTI application. This pertained to the provision of copies of all documents submitted in the exemption application related to the PM CARES Fund, along with file notations indicating approval.

Case Title: CPIO/Dy Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi v. Girish Mittal