On 1st March,The Delhi High Court has requested the Income Tax department’s response on an appeal challenging the CIC’s decision to disclose information about the PM CARES Fund. The appeal questions a single judge’s order, emphasizing that the CIC should have involved the PM CARES Fund as it pertains to a third party. The case revolves around Girish Mittal’s RTI application seeking information on the PM CARES Fund’s exemption application, with the IT department arguing against the CIC’s order.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(On 1st March),the Delhi High Court has sought the stance of the Income Tax department regarding an appeal challenging an order that set aside the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) decision. The CIC had directed the disclosure of information related to the PM CARES Fund to an RTI applicant. The bench, comprised of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora, has instructed the counsel for the IT department to file written submissions. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 10.
The appeal challenges a January 22 order by a single judge of the high court, which overturned the CIC’s direction. The judge ruled that the applicant, Girish Mittal, had sought information from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Income Tax department, not the PM CARES Fund. The judge emphasized that the department does not consider the PM CARES Fund as an authority.
Quoting the single judge’s decision-
“Since the information sought by the RTI applicant relates to a third party, PM CARES Fund ought to have been heard.”
The judge asserted that the CIC should have followed the procedure outlined in Section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering the disclosure of information. The judge acknowledged section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act, stating that information concerning an assesses can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of the specified authorities.
The single judge, in allowing the petition filed by the Income Tax authority, emphasized that the CIC lacked jurisdiction to direct the furnishing of information as per Section 138 of the IT Act. Additionally, the failure to provide notice to PM CARES before the hearing would have vitiated the order, even if the CIC had jurisdiction.
Girish Mittal had initiated the legal process by filing an RTI application before the Income Tax department, seeking information about an exemption application under the Income Tax Act related to the PM CARES Fund. The request also covered all other exemption applications filed before the Income Tax Authority from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.
According to the IT department, the CIC’s order, which refused to furnish information about other exemption applications but issued directions concerning the PM CARES Fund, was inconsistent with the law.
“It is well settled that judicial orders must follow a consistent reasoning,”
-stated the petition, emphasizing that the same principle should have applied to all parts of the RTI application.
The petition pointed to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which allows exemptions for personal information unrelated to any public activity or interest, causing an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The petitioner argued that the information sought pertains to a third party, the PM CARES Fund, a registered trust. Consequently, the impugned order should not have been passed without hearing the concerned party.
The IT authority countered by asserting that the PM CARES Fund is a body owned and controlled by the Government of India.
Mittal’s initial plea for information was rejected by the CPIO, citing personal nature and lack of relevance to any public activity or interest. The First Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, stating that the PM CARES Fund fell outside the purview of the RTI Act. Subsequently, approaching the CIC, Mittal faced a refusal to provide information on other exemption applications, citing the disclosure of personal details of various third-party entities. However, the CIC directed the CPIO to respond within 15 days regarding the availability of documents related to the PM CARES Fund’s exemption application.
