It will prevent authorities from harassing those seeking vital information from government officials

The ruling of the Kerala High Court that even an applicant under the Right to Information Act gets immunity from legal proceedings against him/her based on the statements in application comes as a great relief to RTI activists.

D.B. Binu, RTI activist, said that the landmark verdict gave a new dimension to the RTI Act and would prevent authorities from harassing those seeking vital information from government officials. He pointed out that so far only public information officers under the Act had been given protection against any legal action under Section 21 of the RTI Act.

Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar passed the ruling while quashing disciplinary proceedings against Amrithun M. George, Assistant Director(Development), Spices Board, for making a statement in her application seeking answer sheets in the examination held for the posts of Deputy Director (Accounts) and Deputy Director (Audit and Vigilance). The petitioner had challenged the charge memo issued to her.

She argued that it amounted to virtually an act of harassment. Her application filed under RTI Act said that she believed that certain manipulations were done so as to make her the last rank holder. Therefore she requested for the original copy of the answer sheets of all the candidates along with question papers to her in the examination under the RTI Act. According to the authorities, the statement amounted to misconduct falling under Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The Judge observed that it found force in the contention of the petitioner that Section 21 of the RTI Act afforded a protection to an applicant under the RTI the Act. The contention of the respondents that the provision offered immunity from legal proceedings only to officers exercising powers under the Act did not appeal as convincing since the express provisions of Section 21 of the RTI Act did not “admit of any such restricted interpretation to be placed on the provisions”.

Quashing the charge memo, the court said that the petitioner’s statements did not making any allegation against the respondents. Apart from merely expressing the reasons that weighed with the petitioner for seeking documents under the RTI Act, the statement did not refer to any particular officer/officers or to any specific instructions issued by them.