Yogi-Human Rights Defender, Anti-corruption Crusader & RTI Activist

Public Accountability: Court Orders and RTI Compliance

Public Accountability: Court Orders and RTI Compliance

No, compliance with a High Court order by a public authority cannot be denied. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 does not permit this. This is unless the information genuinely constitutes personal information. Additionally, disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Even then,{nbsp;only if no larger public interest is involved can it be denied. Here’s a…

Yogi M. P. Singh
4–7 minutes

No, compliance with a High Court order by a public authority cannot be denied. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 does not permit this. This is unless the information genuinely constitutes personal information. Additionally, disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Even then,{nbsp;only if no larger public interest is involved can it be denied.

Here’s a detailed legal breakdown:

Understanding Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005

Section 8(1)(j) exempts:

“…information which relates to personal information. The disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest. It would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless… the larger public interest justifies the disclosure.”

Key points:

  • Applies only to personal information of individuals, not institutions or public authorities.legalservicesindia
  • Compliance with a court order by a public authority is not personal information.
  • Public authorities are accountable for implementing judicial orders, and such actions fall under public activity.

Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

  1. Public Activity vs. Personal Privacy
    Courts and CIC have consistently held that actions by public authorities in an official capacity are public activities. These include recruitment, compliance with court orders, or administrative decisions. They are not private matters.lawyersclubindia
  2. Proviso to Section 8(1)
    The RTI Act includes a proviso. It states, “Information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature.” Such information shall not be denied to any person.” This has been interpreted by multiple High Courts (Bombay, Delhi, MP, etc.) to apply especially to Section 8(1)(j). It reinforces that public interest overrides privacy in such cases.rtifoundationofindia
  3. Misuse of Privacy Clause
    Legal experts warn against abuse of Section 8(1)(j) to shield public authorities from scrutiny. The CIC has clarified that information about compliance with legal orders is not exempt. This is applicable unless it involves sensitive personal data unrelated to public interest.legalservicesindia

Conclusion

  • Compliance with a High Court order is a public duty of the authority and cannot be classified as personal information.
  • Denial under Section 8(1)(j) is legally untenable unless the information involves private data of individuals and lacks public interest.
  • In this case, the information sought relates to NHM UP’s compliance with a judicial directive. This is clearly a matter of public interest. It also concerns administrative accountability.

 

Mahesh Pratap Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
आपके वाद संख्या A-20250102157 की ऑनलाइन सुनवाई हेतु माध्यम/ लिंक है : https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/807c7b उक्त वाद संख्या A-20250102157 की ऑनलाइन सुनवाई दिनांक 26/08/2025 समय 12:30 PM बजे से 02:00 PM बजे तक की जाएगी | – CATS UPSIC
Mahesh Pratap Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 25 August 2025 at 17:52
To: SHAKUNTALA GAUTAM <hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in>, dgmhsrti@gmail.com
Cc: jansuchnaadhikariupnhm <jansuchnaadhikariupnhm@gmail.com>

Objection Submission by Appellant: Yogi M P Singh

Subject: Objection to Misleading and Incomplete Information Provided by PIO S.V.P. Pankaj, NHM U.P.

Background of RTI Application

The appellant sought information under the RTI Act, 2005, regarding the recruitment process of 17,000+ posts under NHM U.P. The queries were:

  1. Number of vacancies filled.
  2. Number of vacancies filled from the waiting list.
  3. Action taken on the High Court order dated 21/10/2024.
  4. Action taken on representation by waiting list candidates.
  5. Names/designations of staff involved in compliance of the High Court order.

Point-wise Objections to PIO’s Response

1. Denial of Information on Filled Vacancies

PIO’s Response: Recruitment is done at district level; hence, information not available at state level.

Objection:
This response is evasive. NHM U.P. conducted centralized selection; thus, it must maintain consolidated data. The RTI Act mandates that if information is not held, the PIO must transfer the application under Section 6(3) to the concerned authority. Failure to do so violates procedural compliance.

2. Misleading Statement on Waiting List

PIO’s Response: NHM U.P. did not issue any waiting list.

Objection:
Waiting lists are integral to any recruitment process. Denial of their existence contradicts standard public recruitment norms. If no waiting list was issued, it raises serious questions about transparency and fairness. The denial appears to be a deliberate attempt to suppress facts.

3. Denial of Information Citing Section 8(1)(j)

PIO’s Response: Appellant is not party to the writ petition; hence, information is personal.

Objection:
This is a misapplication of Section 8(1)(j). The High Court order dated 21/10/2024 in WRIT – A No. 14572 of 2024 directed NHM U.P. to decide on the representation of candidates. The compliance of a judicial order by a public authority is not personal information. It is subject to public scrutiny under Article 51A(h) of the Constitution and Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which mandates proactive disclosure of decisions affecting public interest.

Furthermore, the proviso to Section 8(1) states:

“Information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

Multiple High Courts (Bombay, Delhi, MP, etc.) have interpreted this proviso as applicable to Section 8(1)(j), reinforcing that public interest overrides privacy in such cases.

4. Denial Based on Non-availability of Enclosure

PIO’s Response: Representation not enclosed.

Objection:
The representation was attached as the 4th page of the original RTI PDF. The appellant is re-attaching it for clarity. The denial without proper scrutiny of the application is negligent and violates Section 5(3) of the RTI Act, which obligates the PIO to assist the applicant.

5. Denial of Staff Details Citing Section 8(1)(j)

PIO’s Response: Staff details are personal information.

Objection:
Details of officials involved in compliance of a High Court order are not personal but official responsibilities. Disclosure of such information is essential for accountability. The CIC in Balvir Singh Kachhwaha v. SBBJ held that personal information may be disclosed if larger public interest is demonstrated.

In this case, the public interest is evident: compliance with a High Court order affecting thousands of aspirants.

Legal Grounds Supporting Disclosure

  1. RTI Act Section 4(1)(d): Mandates disclosure of reasons for administrative decisions.
  2. RTI Act Section 6(3): Requires transfer of application if information is held by another authority.
  3. RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) Proviso: Information not denied to Parliament cannot be denied to citizens.
  4. Article 51A(h) of Constitution: Duty of citizens to develop scientific temper and public scrutiny.
  5. Judicial Precedents: Courts have upheld disclosure in public interest even under Section 8(1)(j).

Prayer to the Hon’ble Commission

  1. Direct the PIO to provide complete and truthful information as per the RTI application.
  2. Declare the denial under Section 8(1)(j) as unjustified and contrary to law.
  3. Recommend departmental action or penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act for deliberate obstruction.
  4. Ensure compliance with the High Court order dated 21/10/2024 and transparency in recruitment.

Date: 25/08/2025
Appellant: Yogi M P Singh
Mobile: 7379105911
Address: Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur, U.P. – 231001


On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 at 15:36, SHAKUNTALA GAUTAM <hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in> wrote:
 

 
2 attachments
  infpioobjection.pdf
347K
  docrtinhm.pdf
762K

 

Right to Information: Key Questions on Land Grabbing Case
Guwahati Railway Security Concerns Ignored
Challenging Arbitrary Denial of RTI Information
infpioobjectionDownload
Home » Public Accountability: Court Orders and RTI Compliance

7 responses to “Public Accountability: Court Orders and RTI Compliance”

  1. Preeti Singh avatar
    Preeti Singh

    Right to information act 2005 was introduced by the government of India to promote transparency accountability in the working of public authorities. How the transparency and accountability will promote in the system if public information officer concealing the information to cover its corruption under carpet.

  2. Yogi M. P. Singh avatar
    Yogi M. P. Singh

    Think about the gravity of situation, mission director Pinky jovel took under teeth the order passed by the high court of judicature at Allahabad in the matter concerning wide public interest. Obviously this thing happened due to rampant corruption in the working of the public authority and during the processing of the recruitment by the agency of the government.

  3. Bhoomika Singh avatar
    Bhoomika Singh

    Undoubtedly public Information officer of national health mission Uttar Pradesh is running away from providing in formation to the information seeker. Initially, he denied information arbitrarily. PIO made available this misleading information in compliance of the order passed by the Uttar Pradesh information commission.

  4. Shri Krishna Tripathi avatar
    Shri Krishna Tripathi

    The quantum of corruption in the working of the National health mission Uttar Pradesh can be guessed from the fact that after the order of the Uttar Pradesh information commission they are not providing information to the information seeker.

  5. Beerbhadra Singh avatar
    Beerbhadra Singh

    Courts and CIC have consistently held that actions by public authorities in an official capacity are public activities. These include recruitment, compliance with court orders, or administrative decisions. They are not private matters. Why is mission director not allowing public information Officer to provide information to the information seeker?

  6. Vidya Devi avatar
    Vidya Devi

    Objection:
    This is a misapplication of Section 8(1)(j). The High Court order dated 21/10/2024 in WRIT – A No. 14572 of 2024 directed NHM U.P. to decide on the representation of candidates. The compliance of a judicial order by a public authority is not personal information. It is subject to public scrutiny under Article 51A(h) of the Constitution and Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which mandates proactive disclosure of decisions affecting public interest.

  7. Arun Pratap Singh avatar
    Arun Pratap Singh

    It seems that there is no fear in the mind of public formation officers who are overlooking the provisions of Right to information act 2005 and arbitrarily denying the information to the information seekers. It is ridiculous that public information officer is claiming that processing of the high court order and its compliance is personal information which cannot be provided under the provisions of Right to information act 2005.

Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

August 2025
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Discover more from Yogi-Human Rights Defender, Anti-corruption Crusader & RTI Activist

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading