Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 04.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: D.K. Soni, Advocate, Surguja district, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (through Secretary, State Information Commission, Raipur), First Appellate Authority & Upper Collector Surajpur, Public Information Officer Collector Office Surajpur.
  • Three writ petitions were filed: WPC Nos. 909/2020, 913/2020 and 912/2020, all seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
  • In WPC 909/2020 and 913/2020, the petitioner requested the marriage registration application of Kapil Dev Paikra and Lavkesh Kumar Paikra filed with the Additional Collector & Special Marriage Officer, Surajpur, along with supporting documents. The Public Information Officer rejected the request on 01.03.2018 and 06.03.2018, advising the petitioner to obtain certified copies through the proper channel. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the first appeal on 09.04.2018, holding the request contravened Section 8(ख)(ड)(त्र) of the RTI Act. The Second Appeal before the State Information Commission was dismissed on 10.10.2019, affirming the lower authorities’ findings.
  • In WPC 912/2020, the petitioner sought inquiry papers, witness statements and the inquiry report concerning a complaint against D.P.S. Tiwari. The Public Information Officer declined, stating the inquiry was pending. No order was passed by the First Appellate Authority within the statutory period, prompting a Second Appeal. The State Information Commission warned the First Appellate Authority to decide appeals within the prescribed time and directed that a copy of its order dated 10.10.2019 be sent to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Raipur for training of the Information Officer and First Appellate Authority of Sarguja University.
  • The petitioner argued that the refusals were illegal, arbitrary and that the information should be supplied, invoking possible penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act (Rs.250 per day, max Rs.25,000).
  • The respondents contended that the information was personal, unrelated to any public interest, and that the RTI Act’s exemption under Section 8(1)(j) applied.
  • The Court examined the nature of the documents, noting they contained personal details (name, age, DOB, address, photographs, identity documents) required for marriage registration, and therefore fell within the exemption of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
  • The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, including Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam (2018) 11 SCC 426 and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case, reaffirming that personal information is exempt unless an overriding public interest is shown.
  • The Court observed that the State Information Commission failed to examine the merits of the second appeal, merely issuing a caution and training directions, and therefore did not fulfil its jurisdiction under the RTI Act.

Final Outcome

  • Writ Petitions 909/2020 and 913/2020 are dismissed as they lack substantive merit.
  • The order dated 10‑Oct‑2019 of the State Information Commission, which dismissed the second appeal in WPC 912/2020, is set aside.
  • The matter in WPC 912/2020 is remitted to the State Information Commission for fresh consideration of the second appeal, with a directive to examine the legality of the Public Information Officer’s refusal, apply the relevant RTI provisions, and pass a reasoned order within 90 days of receipt of this order.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: RTI, Judicial Review