Introduction

The case of Saurav Das vs Central Public Information Officer, National E-Governance Division (Negd), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, adjudicated by the Central Information Commission (CIC) on November 26, 2020, underscores the critical importance of transparency and accountability in governmental digital initiatives. The complainant, Saurav Das, sought extensive information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act concerning the creation and management of the Aarogya Setu application—a contact tracing tool developed during the COVID-19 pandemic in India.

The key issues revolved around the refusal of multiple public authorities, including the Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) of the National E-Governance Division (NeGD) and the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY), to furnish the requested information. Das alleged that such refusals impeded public scrutiny and transparency, especially concerning the handling of personal data, thereby potentially infringing on citizens' fundamental rights to privacy and liberty.

Summary of the Judgment

The Central Information Commission, after thorough deliberation, directed the concerned CPIOs to issue a show cause notice for their evasive and obstructive responses to Das’s RTI application. The Commission observed that the CPIOs failed to identify the correct custodian of the requested information, thereby violating the RTI Act’s mandate for transparency.

However, during the proceedings, the CPIOs provided comprehensive explanations and acknowledged their initial shortcomings in responding adequately. They cited coordination issues among various departments and eventual efforts to centralize information. Recognizing the absence of malafide intent, the CIC decided against imposing penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act but issued an advisory to ensure the robustness and up-to-date maintenance of the Aarogya Setu website for better public accessibility.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key Supreme Court and High Court decisions that have shaped the interpretation and enforcement of the RTI Act in India:

• Namit Sharma vs Union of India, 2012: Emphasized the RTI Act’s objective to foster government transparency and accountability.
• ICAI vs Shaunak H Satya, 2011: Affirmed that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.
• R.K. Jain vs V.P. Pandey, 2017: Highlighted the discretionary nature of imposing penalties under Section 20, cautioning against unwarranted punitive measures.
• Bhagat Singh vs CIC, 2007: Noted that while delays and inadequate responses in RTI disclosures highlight negligence, they do not inherently constitute malafide intent.

These precedents collectively reinforced the CIC’s stance on ensuring that public authorities adhere to the RTI Act's principles without deterring officers from performing their duties objectively.

Legal Reasoning

The Commission’s legal reasoning centered on the obligations of public authorities under the RTI Act:

• Duty to Provide Information: Public authorities are mandated to facilitate access to information, ensuring that applications are processed diligently and accurately.
• Avoiding Denial Without Justification: Authorities cannot dismiss RTI requests by claiming non-possession of information without a thorough search and reasonable inquiry.
• Penalties for Evasion: While the RTI Act provides for penalties against CPIOs who obstruct information access, such penalties are reserved for cases demonstrating malafide intent or gross negligence.

In this case, the CPIOs’ failure to locate the correct information custodian did amount to negligence. However, the subsequent genuine efforts to rectify the oversight and provide comprehensive information mitigated against the imposition of penalties, as there was no deliberate intent to withhold information.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for future RTI applications and the functioning of public authorities:

• Strengthening Transparency: Reinforces the imperative for governmental bodies to maintain organized, accessible records and databases to respond efficiently to RTI requests.
• Encouraging Accountability: Establishes that while penalties under the RTI Act are not to be levied lightly, authorities must strive to comply diligently to avoid procedural lapses.
• Improving Coordination: Highlights the necessity for inter-departmental collaboration within government bodies to manage and disseminate information effectively.

Specifically, for digital initiatives like Aarogya Setu, the ruling underscores the balance between rapid development in crisis situations and the enduring obligation to maintain transparency and public trust.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Central Information Commission's ruling in Saurav Das vs CPIO serves as a pivotal reference point in the realm of information transparency and RTI compliance in India. It reaffirms the RTI Act's foundational objective of fostering an informed citizenry by ensuring that public authorities are held accountable for their information dissemination practices.

By highlighting the necessity for meticulous record-keeping and inter-departmental coordination, the judgment not only addresses the immediate concerns surrounding the Aarogya Setu app but also sets a broader precedent. It emphasizes that public information officers must be proactive and well-prepared in handling RTI requests, especially those of significant public interest.

Furthermore, the decision delicately balances the enforcement of accountability without discouraging officials from executing their duties by imposing undue penalties. This approach fosters an environment where transparency is championed, and mistakes are rectified constructively.

In the evolving landscape of digital governance, where applications and systems play a crucial role in public welfare, this judgment underscores the enduring importance of transparency. It serves as a reminder that the legitimacy and efficacy of such digital tools are intrinsically linked to the trust and openness with which they are managed and communicated to the populace.