Madurai: The rules governing RTI information cannot be applied mechanically. The High Court has ordered that the government should not refuse to provide documents necessary to file a criminal case.
Details of the petition filed by Abhishek from Madurai in the Madurai Bench of the High Court: My father has gone missing. While we were searching for my father, a letter was sent in his name on Oct. 6. That letter was written in a manner adverse to me and our family members. A forged letter has been sent in my father's name.
On Oct. 6, I submitted a petition to the RMS Senior Superintendent requesting the CCTV footage of the RMS post office in order to identify the person who sent the letter and file a complaint at the police station. He refused to provide it.
If the CCTV footage in the possession of RMS is provided, it will help uncover the truth and identify the person involved in the wrongdoing. Therefore, an order should be issued to provide the CCTV footage. This is what the petition stated.
This petition was heard by Justice G.R. Swaminathan. On behalf of the government, it was stated: “Information can be provided only as specified in the postal manual. Other information cannot be provided. The post office or postal division records can be produced, or the information contained in them can be furnished, only if a police officer investigating a serious offense under the Code of Criminal Procedure or an excise department officer investigating offenses under the Excise Act makes a written request.”
The judge then issued the order: We live in the era of the Right to Information Act. Information cannot be refused by pointing to rules that were included in the postal manual many years ago. Restrictive rules cannot be applied as they are or mechanically. If a person’s rights are violated, he is entitled to legal remedy.
If the affected person wishes to initiate criminal action against the person responsible for the violation of rights, and if that person’s identity can be ascertained through evidence available with the government, it is the duty of the authorities to provide that evidence to the victim.
Failing to provide these records to the affected person would deprive him of his right to take legal action. Refusing to provide information would be justified only in certain specific circumstances. Those circumstances must be very rare and must fall under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Accordingly, the control rules in the postal manual are not valid. The court takes note that complaints may damage the petitioner’s reputation, and that without obtaining CCTV footage, the person who filed the complaint cannot be identified. RMS must provide the details requested by the petitioner on a pen drive within 2 weeks. This is what the judge has stated in the order.