The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued a stern directive requiring Appellate Authorities under the Right to Information Act to abandon "cryptic and non-speaking orders" in favor of clear, reasoned decisions. This ruling mandates that authorities must explicitly address each information point sought, specify exactly what data is provided along with delivery dates, and articulate cogent reasons for any denials. By enforcing these standards, the court aims to eliminate vague rulings that fail to engage with the substantive arguments of applicants, ensuring that administrative justice is transparent and accountable. The court emphasized that since the State Information Commission acts as a quasi-judicial authority, it bears the obligation to provide comprehensive findings that withstand judicial scrutiny. Mere "rubber stamp" approvals are insufficient; instead, decisions must demonstrate a genuine consideration of submissions from both parties. This requirement reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done, thereby preventing arbitrary dismissals and ensuring that citizens receive meaningful explanations for the access or refusal of public information. This judgment is highly relevant to the open data movement because it strengthens the legal framework necessary for effective data transparency. When public records are inaccessible due to opaque bureaucratic processes, citizens cannot hold governments accountable or utilize information for civic innovation. By forcing authorities to produce detailed, itemized responses, this ruling reduces ambiguity and sets a precedent for higher quality public disclosure, which is fundamental for fostering an environment where open data can be reliably requested, understood, and utilized by the public.
Source: livelaw.inPublished on 2023-08-24