RTI – Right to Information

Right to Information (RTI) litigation before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh arises from disputes rooted in the statutory framework that governs transparency, accountability and public access to governmental records. The High Court’s jurisdiction is invoked when applicants challenge refusal orders, partial disclosures, rejections on exemption grounds, decisions of First Appellate Authorities, or orders passed by State Information Commissions in Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Proceedings under this category require judicial examination of whether public authorities discharged their statutory obligations, whether exemptions were applied correctly, and whether procedural safeguards embedded in the statutory framework were observed. RTI matters that reach the High Court reflect questions of legality, jurisdiction, proportionality, public interest and the correct interpretation of statutory exemptions.

A substantial portion of RTI litigation concerns refusal or denial of information by public authorities. Applicants contend that their requests were rejected without proper justification, that authorities misapplied exemption clauses, or that disclosures were withheld for reasons unrelated to statutory provisions. Public authorities often defend their decisions citing confidentiality concerns, third-party objections, privilege, national interest, or lack of availability of records. The High Court evaluates whether the denial adheres to statutory requirements, whether reasons were recorded in accordance with law, and whether authorities discharged their duty to facilitate access rather than restrict it. Judicial scrutiny ensures that refusal orders are grounded in statutory provisions and that public authorities do not treat exemptions as a default option.

Another recurring category of disputes concerns delayed responses or non-response by public authorities. Applicants frequently contend that their statutory right to timely information was frustrated by administrative inaction, deliberate withholding of data, or casual treatment of statutory timelines. The High Court examines whether the delay was justified, whether the authority failed to act within prescribed periods, and whether procedural obligations were disregarded. Judicial intervention in such cases serves to reinforce the mandatory nature of timelines and discourages systemic inefficiencies in handling requests.

Litigation also arises when State Information Commissions issue directions that are challenged by either applicants or public authorities. Applicants may contend that commissions wrongly upheld exemption claims, overlooked public interest considerations or failed to evaluate the reasonableness of restrictions. Public authorities may challenge commission orders compelling disclosure, alleging breach of privilege, violation of confidentiality or improper interpretation of statutory exemptions. The High Court examines the legality of such orders, ensures that the commissions acted within their jurisdiction, and evaluates whether their reasoning aligns with statutory objectives. Judicial oversight provides consistency in interpretation and application of transparency norms.

Another important category involves disputes concerning third-party information. Applicants may seek information relating to service records, disciplinary proceedings, commercial dealings or contractual arrangements involving third parties. Public authorities often invoke exemptions relating to personal information, commercial confidence or fiduciary relationships. The High Court examines whether the information sought qualifies as third-party information, whether disclosure would serve a larger public interest, and whether statutory balancing tests were applied correctly. Judicial oversight ensures that third-party rights are protected without compromising statutory objectives of transparency.

Litigation also arises in cases involving access to records relating to recruitment, promotions, departmental examinations, procurement processes, public projects, land allotment, licensing and financial decisions. Applicants contend that the information sought is essential for ensuring procedural fairness or exposing irregularities. Public authorities may argue that disclosure is impractical, voluminous or contrary to public interest. The High Court evaluates whether authorities discharged their burden to justify refusal, whether information is accessible under statutory definitions, and whether non-disclosure aligns with governing principles of confidentiality and security. Judicial intervention ensures appropriate balance between transparency and institutional functioning.

A separate category concerns disputes relating to missing, untraceable or unavailable records. Applicants challenge responses where authorities claim that records were destroyed, misplaced or never existed. The High Court examines whether authorities complied with statutory obligations relating to maintenance of records, whether the explanation offered is credible, and whether failure to maintain records constitutes a violation of administrative norms. Judicial scrutiny ensures that public authorities cannot evade responsibility by citing record unavailability without demonstrating adherence to record-keeping protocols.

Another significant class of RTI disputes relates to fiduciary relationships, where public authorities refuse disclosure citing obligations of confidentiality arising from professional, administrative or statutory relationships. The High Court examines whether such relationships genuinely fall within statutory exemption, whether disclosure would harm protected interests, and whether public interest overrides confidentiality. Judicial evaluation ensures that fiduciary claims are not misused to deny access without lawful justification.

Disputes also arise concerning information involving ongoing investigations, vigilance inquiries or proceedings before disciplinary or fact-finding authorities. Public authorities often claim exemption to protect investigatory integrity, prevent interference or avoid prejudice to pending matters. Applicants argue that information is necessary to ensure fairness or expose irregularities. The High Court examines whether non-disclosure is essential to protect the process, whether disclosure would genuinely impede proceedings, and whether authorities applied statutory tests correctly. Judicial scrutiny ensures balanced consideration of competing interests.

The High Court also addresses petitions where applicants allege systemic non-compliance by departments or repeated violations of statutory obligations by public authorities. In such matters, judicial intervention may include directions to formulate institutional mechanisms, training programs, internal audits or record-management protocols to enhance compliance. These proceedings reinforce institutional accountability and ensure that transparency norms are treated as mandatory obligations rather than discretionary choices.

Across these categories — refusals of disclosure, delayed responses, commission orders, third-party disputes, service-record inquiries, procurement-related transparency, fiduciary exemptions, investigatory exemptions, missing records and systemic compliance failures — the Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that RTI jurisprudence within the region operates according to statutory principles. The High Court’s role is to ensure that public authorities act consistently with legislative intent and that exemptions are applied cautiously and strictly. Judicial oversight strengthens public confidence, ensures clarity in administrative functioning and reinforces the statutory mandate of transparency, accountability and open governance within Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.