The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court underscores that the challenge of gathering information cannot be used as a valid reason to refuse access under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized that a Public Authority cannot justify denying information under the RTI Act simply because the requested information is not centralized and would require significant time to compile.

The court emphasized that the primary aim of the RTI Act is to promote transparency within Government Departments. The State Government cannot impede this objective by refusing to provide information solely on the basis of its volume or complexity.

Justice Prasad's remarks were made in the context of rejecting a plea filed by the Delhi Government, which sought to challenge an order issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC).

The case originated from an RTI application submitted by Probhjot Singh Dhillon, who sought information regarding the number of instances in which the Delhi Government's Education Department had taken disciplinary action against teachers for conducting private tuition in the national capital.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the Public Information Officer (PIO) had been handling the RTI application from the Respondent in a careless manner. In its order, the CIC instructed the PIO of the Aided School Branch to furnish the requested information to Dhillon.

The court, in dismissing the plea, stated that information regarding disciplinary actions taken by the Government and aided schools against teachers conducting private tuitions can be provided to Dhillon. Even though this data might not be centralized and would require compilation from various sources within the Department, it should still be made available to the applicant.

The court noted that the Delhi Government is expected to possess information concerning penalties imposed on teachers for engaging in private tuitions, irrespective of whether they are employed in government or private schools.

In line with this, Justice Prasad instructed the Delhi Government to furnish the information requested by Dhillon pertaining to both government and private schools regarding instances where significant penalties have been levied against teachers for conducting private tuitions.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi and Mr. Hitanshu Mishra, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Krishna Gopal Abhay, Mr. Karmanya Singh Sareen, Mr. Sahib Singh Dhillon and Mr. Rinku, Advocates

Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. MR PRABHJOT SINGH DHILLON