CHIEF INFORMATION COMMR. AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 12-12-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C:R. 505 
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMR. AND ANOTHER 
v 
STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal Nos.10787-10788 of 2011) 
DECEMBER 12, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, 
JJ.] 
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005: 
ss. 7, 18(1) and 19(1) - No response to application 
seeking information uls 6 -
Remedy - Applicant filing 
complaint uls 18 - Chief Information Commissioner directing 
the State Information Officer to furnish the required information 
A 
B 
c 
- Held: The applicant after having applied for information u/ D 
s 6 and then not having received any reply thereto, it must 
be deemed that he has been refused the information - The 
situation is covered by s. 7 and the remedy is provided by 
way appeal u/s 19 - Applicant directed to file appeals u/s 19 
in respect of the requests made in his applications - Appeal E 
- Interpretation of Statutes - Limitation. 
ss. 18 and 19 - Scope of and difference between the two 
procedures - Explained. 
s. 24(4) - Act not to apply to certain organizations -
F 
Notification dated 15.10.2005,issued by State Government 
notifying the exemption of certain Government organizations 
from the purview of the Act - Held: s. 24 does not have any 
retrospective operation - Therefore, no notification issued in 
exercise of the power uls 24 can be given retrospective effect G 
- Even otherwise, the exemption does not cover a/legations 
of corruption and human right violations - Government of 
Manipur Notification dated 15. 10. 2005 - Retrospective 
operation. 
505 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Object of the Act - Held: The Act has been enacted to 
promote transparency and accountability in the working of 
every public authority in order to strengthen the core 
constitutional values of a democratic republic and to curb 
corruption - The Act is meant to harmonise the conflicting 
B interests of Government to preserve the confidentiality of 
sensitive information with the right of citizens to know the 
functioning of the governmental process in such a way as to 
preserve the paramountcy of the democratic ideal - The Act 
is based on the concept of an open society - Declaration of 
c European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights 
(1950); and Universal Declaration of 1948. 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Article 19 (1) (a)-Right to information - Held: Right to 
D information which is basically founded on the right to know, 
is an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to free speech and 
expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) -
Right to 
information is definitely a fundamental right of free speech -
E 
Right to Information Act, 2005. 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES; 
Harmonious construction - HELD: No statute should be 
interpreted in such a manner as to render a part of it redundant 
or surp/usage - When a procedure is laid down statutorily and 
F there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the court 
should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure 
which is contrary to the express statutory provision - Thus, a 
construction which leads to redundancy of a portion of the 
statute cannot be accepted in the absence of compelling 
G reasons. 
H 
Appellant no. 2 filed two applications dated 9.2.2007 
and 19.5.2007 u/s 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 
seeking information regarding magisterial inquiries 
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMR. AND ANR. v. STATE 507 
OF MANIPUR 
initiated by the State Government during certain periods. 
A 
As there was no response by the State Public 
Information Officer, the appellant filed two complaints u/ 
s 18 of the Act. The State Chief Information 
Commissioner, by orders dated 3.5.2009 and 14.8.2007, 
directed respondent No.2 to furnish the required 
B 
information within 15 days of the respective orders. The 
State challenged both the orders by filing writ petitions, 
which were dismissed by the Single Judge of the High 
Court, inter-alia, upholding the orders of the Chief 
Information Commissioner. However, in the writ appeals, c 
the Division Bench of the High Court held that the Chief 
Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction, 
as u/s 18 of the Act, he was not empowered to pass a 
direction to the State Public Information Officer for 
furnishing the information sought for by the complainant, 
0 
and such a power was conferred u/s 19(8) of the Act on 
the basis of an exercise u/s 19 only. Aggrieved, the Chief 
Information Commissioner filed the appeals. 
Di

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.