
Justice Shujoon stresses consistency in RTI compliance
Majority ruled to proceed with the case, emphasising the need for clarity in future interpretations of the RTI Act.
Top Stories
-
Maldives to build 4,000 Gulhifalhu housing units with India loan
-
MDP MPs forced out in violation of law, MP Nazil says
-
Low-interest housing loan disbursements from July, president says
-
Tobacco tax hike to fund cessation programmes, president says
-
Rasmale land dredging to finish in 2025, president says
Supreme Court Justice Aisha Shujoon Mohamed on Sunday emphasised that authorities must not offer varying reasons to deny information requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Speaking during a case hearing, Justice Shujoon highlighted the importance of transparency and consistency in state agencies' responses to information requests.
The case involved Right to Information activist Ahmed Afrah Ismail, who requested information regarding an agreement from the Ministry of Housing. The timeline of events is as follows:
-
August 31, 2022: Afrah submitted a formal information request.
-
September 2022: The Housing Ministry extended the response period by 14 days under Article VII of the RTI Act as the 21-day statutory period was nearing expiration.
-
October 9, 2022: Afrah filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICOM) after the extended deadline passed without receiving the requested information.
-
October 25, 2022: The Housing Ministry provided partial information but withheld certain details without a clear legal justification.
During the ICOM hearings, the ministry did not offer reasons for withholding the information. However, at the High Court hearing, detailed justifications were presented.
Shujoon criticised the practice of offering inconsistent justifications for withholding information. She likened it to "trying to catch a fish by throwing nets at different points along the banks of a river."
The judge stated that the RTI Act's purpose is to ensure transparency by providing information, with exemptions clearly defined in law. She emphasised that if requested information falls under an exception, the reason for withholding it must be communicated immediately.
"The spirit and purpose of the law are for state agencies to provide information," Shujoon said. "If information qualifies for an exemption, the information officer must clearly disclose the reason."
Justice Dr Azmiralda Zahir supported Justice Shujoon's stance. The majority of the bench ruled to overturn the High Court's decision, stating that the case warranted further review. They upheld the principle that inconsistent reasoning undermines the intent of the RTI Act.
Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir dissented, arguing that the High Court should be the final appellate authority in such cases. He noted:
-
The RTI Act specifies the High Court as the appellate forum, without explicitly granting further review by the Supreme Court.
-
The shortened appeal process aligns with the constitutional right to access information under Article 29 of the constitution.
Despite the dissent, the majority ruled to proceed with the case, emphasising the need for clarity in future interpretations of the RTI Act.