Supreme Court has said today that in cases of Right to Information request, the State must clearly state reasons for refusing to disclose the requested information.
Supreme Court has said today that in cases of Right to Information request, the State must clearly state reasons for refusing to disclose the requested information.
Housing Ministry did not respond to an RTI request submitted by RTI activist Ahmed Afrah Ismail in 2022 seeking information regarding the construction of Ameenee Magu. This was raised at the Information Commissioner's Office, which then ordered the ministry to comply.
The ministry appealed the Information Commissioner's ruling at the High Court. The High Court ruled that the ministry must provide the information requested by Afrah. The State then appealed the case at the Supreme Court.
While the ministry did not specify reasons for withholding the information at the Information Commissioner's hearing, they presented several reasons at the High Court. This raised questions whether information that was not shared at the Information Commissioner's hearing could be shared during the appeal process. Generally, appeal cases do not accept new information that was not shared at the lower stage hearing.
Judge Aisha Shujune, the presiding judge in today's hearing of the appeal case at the Supreme Court, said that the result the law aims for is to disclose information requested for by a person under the RTI Act. In the instance that the information cannot be disclosed, then the applicant should be informed of reasons why.
Judge Shujune noted that State entities cite different reasons for not disclosing information in different stages of the hearings, and said that this is not acceptable.
"Citing different reasons for not disclosing information at different stages is like staying on the bank of a river and throwing your fishing line to random spots, hoping for a catch somewhere. If this is the manner that is followed, then there may arise difficulties in accepting that the information genuinely needs to be withheld," she said.
Judge Shujune said that if the reasons for withholding the information is declared at the initial stage, then further details supporting this can be submitted at higher level hearings. However, new reasons cannot be introduced in higher court appeal hearings, she said.
'The Information Commissioner's ruling must be considered by the High Court in light of the information provided to the iCOM," she said.
High Court earlier ruled that iCOM had seen the case submitted by Afrah as an appeal, and not a complaint. However, the Attorney General's Office refuted this at the Supreme Court, stating it was a complaint.
Under the RTI Act, an appeal or a complaint can be lodged with the iCOM. Appeals can be submitted if the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision reached by the Review Committee after review. Complaints are lodged if the information is not disclosed within the period specified in the law.
Housing Ministry extended the duration for response, and still failed to provide the information even when the extended deadline was reached. Once Afrah submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner, the ministry released some information.
Based on this, the High Court ruled that Afrah had submitted an appeal, and not a complaint. However, the Supreme Court ruling states that High Court ruling confuses the boundaries set in the law. They said that if information is not disclosed within the defined period, then there is no matter to be reviewed by the Review Committee. In such an instance, the only course of action is to submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner, they said.
Judge Shujune stated that even if the information, or part of the information, is disclosed after the deadline, for legal reasons, it must be considered as refusal to comply.
She said that interpreting it in any other way would impose limits on the Right to Information granted in the Constitution.
Although Supreme Court revoked part of the High Court's ruling, they upheld the High Court's order that the information requested must be provided. Hence, the Supreme Court ordered the State to disclose all the information requested regarding the construction of Ameenee Magu. This ruling was backed by two out of three judges on the bench.
Judge Mahaaz Ali Zahir, who differed, maintains that the last stage of hearings for iCOM related cases is the High Court, and said that the Supreme Court cannot hear the case.
Judge Shujune and Judge Dr Azmiralda Zahir, however, stated that there is no requirement in this case to judge whether RTI cases can be heard at the Supreme Court.
Sign In
