Latest Legal NewsAdvocate Tanwar

Introduction

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a landmark legislation in India that empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities. It is designed to promote transparency and accountability in governance. However, the mode of application submission has often been a subject of debate. One key question that has emerged is whether an RTI application can be filed via email. A recent judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. State Information Commission, Haryana & Others (CWP-36226-2018) provides clarity on this issue. This article delves into the legal provisions, judicial interpretation, and implications of seeking information under RTI via email.

Understanding the RTI Act, 2005

The RTI Act, 2005, was enacted to empower citizens by granting them the right to access information held by public authorities. The primary objectives of the Act are:

  1. Promoting Transparency: Ensuring that government operations are open to public scrutiny.
  2. Accountability: Holding public officials accountable for their decisions and actions.
  3. Empowering Citizens: Providing citizens with the necessary tools to participate in governance.

Section 6 of the RTI Act: Mode of Application Submission

Section 6(1) of the RTI Act states:

“A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed.”

This provision explicitly allows RTI applications to be submitted through electronic means, which includes email. However, in practice, many public authorities have been reluctant to accept RTI requests sent via email, citing procedural concerns and the need to verify the applicant’s identity.

The Case of Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. State Information Commission, Haryana & Others

Background of the Case

Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta filed an RTI application via email, seeking information from a public authority. He also deposited the prescribed RTI fee into the bank account of the concerned public body. However, the information was denied to him on the ground that he had not submitted a physically signed application.

The matter escalated to the State Information Commission, Haryana, which upheld the public authority’s decision. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Dr. Gupta filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the refusal to provide information.

Arguments Presented

  1. Petitioner’s Argument:
    • The RTI Act allows applications to be submitted electronically, and email falls within this definition.
    • He had already paid the RTI fee, fulfilling the procedural requirements.
    • Requiring a physically signed application was an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle.
  2. Respondent’s Argument (Public Authority):
    • A signed written application helps in verifying the identity of the applicant and prevents misuse.
    • They required Dr. Gupta to submit a physical application before providing the information.
    • If he submitted a signed application, the information would be provided within 30 days.

Court’s Ruling

  1. RTI Applications via Email are Legally Valid:
    • The High Court ruled in favor of Dr. Gupta, stating that email is a valid mode of submitting an RTI application under Section 6 of the RTI Act.
    • The requirement of a physical signature was not a legal mandate.
  2. Identity Verification is Sufficient:
    • The court acknowledged the public authority’s right to verify the applicant’s identity.
    • However, once an applicant has confirmed their identity, there is no legal basis to insist on a physically signed application.
  3. Public Authorities Cannot Impose Additional Barriers:
    • The court noted that public authorities cannot create procedural obstacles beyond what is prescribed in the RTI Act.
    • As long as the applicant pays the required fee and submits a proper request, the information must be provided.
  4. Final Order:
    • The court directed the public authority to provide the requested information within 30 days.
    • The petition was disposed of in favor of Dr. Gupta.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has far-reaching consequences for RTI applicants across India. Some key takeaways include:

  1. Acceptance of RTI Applications via Email
    • Public authorities must accept RTI applications sent via email.
    • They cannot refuse information merely because the request is not in physical form.
  2. Removal of Unnecessary Bureaucratic Hurdles
    • Many government departments reject RTI requests citing procedural issues. This judgment establishes that unwarranted procedural barriers violate the RTI Act.
  3. Encouragement of Digital Filing
    • With the push for Digital India, this ruling reinforces the use of electronic communication for governance.
    • Citizens can file RTI applications conveniently without needing to submit a physical document.
  4. Legal Precedent for Future Cases
    • This ruling sets a precedent that other High Courts and the Supreme Court may refer to in future cases involving electronic RTI applications.

Challenges and Possible Concerns

While this judgment is a step in the right direction, some challenges remain:

1. Verification of Identity

  • Public authorities have raised concerns that emails can be misused if someone else submits an RTI application using another person’s identity.
  • A possible solution is linking RTI applications with Aadhaar or other verification methods.

2. Technical and Administrative Readiness

  • Many government departments lack the necessary infrastructure to process RTI applications electronically.
  • Authorities may need clear guidelines on how to handle email-based RTI requests.

3. Resistance from Public Authorities

  • Despite this judgment, some departments may still insist on a physical application.
  • Applicants may have to challenge such refusals legally, which could deter many citizens.

Conclusion: The Way Forward

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling in Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta’s case is a landmark decision that upholds the right of citizens to seek information via email under the RTI Act. This judgment reinforces the spirit of transparency and accountability in governance while removing unnecessary procedural barriers. However, there is a need for:

  1. Clear RTI Rules: The government should issue uniform guidelines for electronic RTI applications.
  2. Digital Infrastructure: Public authorities should upgrade their technical capabilities to process RTI applications efficiently.
  3. Awareness Campaigns: Citizens must be educated about their right to file RTI applications via email.

With increasing digitization, email-based RTI applications should become the norm rather than an exception. This will make the RTI process more accessible, efficient, and citizen-friendly, ultimately strengthening democracy and good governance in India.

Final Verdict: Can One Seek Information Under RTI via Email?

Yes. The law permits it, and courts have upheld this right. Public authorities cannot reject RTI requests solely on the ground that they were submitted via email.