Can 4-year-old file RTI? Why Central Information Commission rejected 5 complaints filed in child’s name

“The Commission is of the view that the present complaints are not maintainable on the ground of lack of locus standi of the complainant and absence of proof of valid representation of the minor applicant,” the May 4 order noted

The Central Information Commission heard a matter over five RTI complaints filed in the name of a four-year-old girl.

‘Five complaints’

Five RTI applications were filed in the name of a four-year-old minor girl before the Commission against the AWBI, seeking information on various animal-related issues.

The information sought in the aforementioned RTI included the animal fitness certificate, transportation permit for animals, expenditure and functioning of the AWBI, action status taken against the abuse of animals, and a complete report on the project with recommendations for the rehabilitation of circus animals.

Additionally, it also questioned various issues related to animals, such as the treatment of yaks and camels, and a report on the implementation of animal welfare schemes and related funds.

Queries raised are non-specific: AWBI

• Secretary Maheshbhai and Assistant Secretary Prachi Jain, representing AWBI, submitted that the complainant had filed the complaints as the guardian of the four-year-old minor RTI applicant, but had failed to furnish any proof of guardianship. 
• It was contended that in most of the matters, the queries raised by the appellant are non-specific and are like seeking clarification rather than “information” as defined under the RTI Act, 2005.   
• They submitted that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) was only obligated to provide such information available on record and was not expected to create, compile, or generate information that was not maintained. 

RTI Act does not bar minors, but guardianship proof is must: Commission

• After perusal of the records, the commission found that the five RTI applications were filed in the name of a four-year-old minor girl by her grandfather, who was actually pursuing the complaints in her name.
• The commission noted that although the RTI Act, 2005, does not bar minors from seeking information, proceedings initiated by a person on behalf of a minor must be supported by authorisation or proof of guardianship due to the issue of legal capacity and representation. 
• The Commission observed that in such cases, the person acting on behalf of the minor should clearly establish their status as a lawful guardian or authority from the minor’s natural guardians to represent and pursue legal proceedings on the minor’s behalf. 

No proof produced by complainant

The Commission noted that the complainant neither submitted any proof of guardianship nor any authorisation from the minor’s natural guardians to act on the minor applicant’s behalf, and he failed to produce any of these documents even during the hearing. 

The commission opined that, in the absence of any proof on record, guardianship or authorisation could not be presumed when the RTI applicant was a minor lacking the capacity to pursue proceedings without proper representation independently. 

Accordingly, the commission held that the present complaints were not maintainable on the grounds of lack of locus standi of the complainant and lack of proof to establish the guardianship and authorisation of the minor applicant.

Allahabad High Court refused to release answer sheets of higher judicial service exam under RTI

The Allahabad High Court has recently set aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had directed the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets of the UP Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2009, under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Indrajeet Shukla held that the higher judicial services examination is sacrosanct and confidentiality has to be maintained.

“We find that the examination conducted by the High Court, namely the Higher Judicial Services Examination, is sacrosanct and confidentiality and sanctity have to be maintained even while ensuring transparency, supply of the answer books, under no circumstances is necessary,” the court held in its order dated April 17.