The CPIO under the RTI Act, faces a 48 hours deadline for providing an information, if, it concerns the life or liberty of a person[1]. Life and liberty applications are thus, extremely urgent applications. The RTI Act however, neither defines the terms of life and liberty nor prescribes any procedural guidance on how to deal with the life and liberty applications.
Central Information Commission (CIC), in the RTI matter of Shri Shekhar Singh and Ors Vs. PMO[2] while dealing with the query of “When is the question of life and liberty to be considered a matter of concern?” laid down the following parameters:
- The RTI application be accompanied with substantive evidence that a threat to life exists (e.g. medical report).
- If, the claim of concern for life and liberty is not accepted in a particular case by the public authority, the reasons for not doing so, must be given in writing while disposing of the application.
Subsequently, in the matter of Pratap Kumar Jena[3], CIC laid down that:
- The norm is to provide information within thirty days, the life and liberty proviso (reply in 48 hour) is to be applied only in exceptional cases.
- The government machinery is not designed in a way that responses to all RTI Applications can be given within forty-eight hours.
- The life and liberty proviso can be invoked only, where, there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person.
- Liberty of a person is threatened, if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the information would obviate the danger, then it may be considered under the life and liberty proviso. The imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven.
Types of Life and liberty information:
CIC has held various kinds of informations as being related to life and liberty. Any information relating to fixation, non-payment and delay regarding fixation of pension, besides non-payment of interest on arrears has been held to be a life and liberty related information[4]. Though, subsequently, Delhi High Court has held that CIC’s wide categorization for all pension cases to need extreme expedition, may not be justified[5]. Meaning thereby that not all cases of pension can be treated as though it concerns life and liberty of an individual.
In another matter, where, the RTI Applicants had sought information on the action taken on their applications for ration card, such an information was seen as related to life and liberty[6].
In a matter where, the Appellant submitted that an FIR had been filed against him by his estranged wife, falsely alleging that the appellant/complainant kidnapped his daughter on a particular date to which his wife is an eye witness, the CIC observed that the matter pertains to the life and liberty of the appellant/complainant[7].
Imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person:
While in the case of Pratap Kumar Jena, CIC laid down that the life and liberty proviso can be invoked only where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person, in some subsequent cases, CIC held that if, it is primafacie visible that the information might be used for protection of life and liberty or used against possible danger to life or liberty, the CPIO has to provide information within 48 hours. There is no need to look for imminent danger to life. In this matter, non-payment of pension for more than five years of a retired employee was held to be a life and liberty matter, survival of the applicant being threatened due to non-payment of pension[8].
Who can invoke the life and liberty clause:
A person being imprisoned or extremely unwell may not be in a position to file the RTI Application. In such a case, can another person seek information under the life and liberty clause on his behalf? The Jammu Kashmir State Information Commission has opined that it may be allowed, provided, the person filing the RTI application is a close member of the Applicant’s family or any other person who has bonafide interest in the preservation and maintenance of life and liberty of the applicant[9]
With regard to locus-standi of such an individual, CIC observed that, if an individual, who has prima-facie no relation to the information seeker, invokes the life and liberty proviso on his behalf, then it is imperative to assess the locus-standi of such an individual so as to secure a balance between right to information and use of resources of the public authorities in attending to such RTI Applications within 48 hours[10].
Conclusion:
RTI Act clearly provides that, if the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, it has to be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. The CIC has however, laid down some standards to be followed:
1. Life and liberty proviso is to be applied only in exceptional cases.
2.The Applicant invoking the proviso will be entitled to receive the information within 48 hours, if he successfully establishes (by submitting evidence) that, in case of non-supply of information, he will be deprived of his life and liberty or that there is an imminent danger to his life or liberty.
3.If an another person invokes the life and liberty clause on behalf of a citizen, then, it is imperative to assess the locus-standi of such an individual so as to secure the balance between the right to information and the resources of the public authority.
4.In case, the applicant’s claim for life and liberty proviso is not accepted by the Public Authority, then the Public Authority has to provide reasons for the non-acceptance.
As discussed above, for a successful invocation of the life and liberty proviso, a mere statement that my life and liberty is under threat will not entitle the RTI Applicant to receive the information within 48 hrs. He/she will have to prove the same.
[1] Proviso to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005
[2] Shri Shekhar Singh, Smt Aruna Roy & others vs. PMO, Appeal No CIC/WB/C/2006/00066 dated 19.4.2006
[3] Pratap Kumar Jena vs. PIO, Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi in Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000814, Division bench of CIC
[4] V Vaidyanathan v. PIO, APF Commissioner, CIC/BS/C/2016/000362, dated 12.04.2017
[5] SS Mahendra Kumar vs. CIC & Anr. (LPA No. 91 of 2018) dated 10.04.2018
[6] Ms. Kaushalya & others vs. Food & Supply Dept., GNCTD, dated 24.3.2014, File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003135SA, File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003144SA,File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003136SA,File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003137SA, File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003147SA
[7]Love Gogia vs. CPIO/MEA, Second Appeal No.CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/646057, Complaint No.CIC/MOEAF/C/2019/646092 dated 7.11.2019
[8]Todarram v. PIO, Department of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2017/130052 dated 09.04.2018
[9] Dr. Raja Muzaffar Bhat/ Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad vs. PIO, G.B Pant Hospital, Srinagar dated 01.12.2015
[10] Vekatesh Nayak vs Department of Defence on 23 July, 2019, File No: CIC/MODEF/A/2018/150559/SD
39 Comments
Comments are closed.