The Delhi High Court criticized the MCD for failing to proactively disclose information under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Court ruled that no public authority is exempt from transparency obligations and must ensure public access.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has strongly criticized the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to proactively disclose information as required under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
A division bench, including Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, stated that no public authority, including the MCD, is exempt from this obligation.
The court was addressing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment. The petition called for the MCD to upload its legislative records, house proceedings, standing committee resolutions, and other public documents to its official website within a specified timeframe.
The bench expressed frustration over the MCD’s prolonged inaction, sarcastically commenting,
“Thanks to you for undertaking this exercise after 20 years. We are so thankful.”
The judges further questioned the reasons behind the delays, asking:
“What process? You are required to upload this information within 120 days and then on a regular interval. What have you been doing? This Act was passed in 2005. It is 20 years down the line.”
They emphasized that Section 4 of the RTI Act imposes a statutory duty aimed at minimizing the necessity for formal RTI applications by promoting proactive disclosures by public authorities.
The court added,
“No exception in this regard can be granted to any authority including the MCD,”
The counsel for the MCD argued that the matter was currently under the active consideration of the competent authority and that steps were being taken at the corporation level. However, the court remained unsatisfied and ordered the MCD to submit an affidavit outlining the specific measures taken to implement Section 4 of the RTI Act.
The petitioner highlighted that, in response to an RTI query, the MCD had admitted it had not uploaded legislative records because it was in the process of updating its website following the merger of the three former municipal corporations. The MCD also referenced Section 86 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to assert that no rules existed for publishing such resolutions online.
The court firmly dismissed this justification, stating:
“Section 86 has nothing to do with dissemination of information and particulars to the public.”
The petitioner stressed the significance of the matter, noting its impact on millions of Delhi residents. He questioned why the MCD was unable to upload its forthcoming budget online if it was already prepared. The bench clarified that budget documents could only be uploaded once they had been approved by the House.
It emphasized that
“we should achieve what is legally permissible and possible.”
Acknowledging that it was forming only a prima facie opinion at this stage, the High Court scheduled the next hearing for April and reiterated the urgency of compliance with the transparency requirements under the RTI framework.