1 CGHC010177272021 2026:CGHC:28125 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2988 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Through Its Secretary, Gandhi Chowk , Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs , Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, District Raipur 492002 Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Somraj Shrivastav Saraswati Kunj, Behind Balram Takies, Gandhi, Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 /State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.07.09 13:50:08 +0530 2 SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein i.e. Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog has called in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 28/05/2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission whereby the petitioner has been directed to provide information as required by respondent No. 3 vide his application dated 23/04/2018 (Annexure P-2). The Challenge :- 2. Respondent No. 3 had filed an application on 23/04/2018 (Annexure P-2) seeking certain information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, “the RTI Act”) pertaining to complaint made by one Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandal in the year 2016 regarding direct recruitment by Chhattisgarh Ayurvigyan Sansthan in the year 2013-14 and proceedings registered by the petitioner and the order passed consequent thereto. However, the Public Information Officer, vide its order dated 01/05/2018 (Annexure P-3), 3 declined to furnish the information on the ground that the investigation/enquiry is still pending and therefore, it is protected information as contemplated under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (in short, “the Act of 2002”) read with Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 3. Respondent No. 3, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 01/05/2018 (Annexure P-3), filed an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act (Annexure P-4) whereby the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 07/06/2018 (Annexure P-5), affirmed the order passed by the Public Information Officer and rejected the appeal of respondent No. 3 by recording a categorical finding that the Public Information Officer was justified in refusing to furnish the required information. 4. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 preferred a second appeal before respondent No. 2 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission and the same has been allowed vide impugned order dated 28/05/2021 (Annexure P-1) whereby the orders passed by the Public Information Officer as well the first Appellate Authority have been set aside holding that by virtue of Section 22 of the RTI Act, the RTI Act has an overriding effect over Section 14(1) of the Act of 2002 and 4 also on the ground that the first Appellate Authority has not assigned reasons for denying information under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the Act of RTI Act. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order impugned passed by the respondent No. 2, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. Submission of the parties :- 5. Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No. 2 is absolutely unjustified in passing the impugned order (Annexure P-1) as it is without jurisdiction and is contrary to the statutory procedural compliances as provided under the RTI Act. He would further submit that respondent No. 2 has completely failed to appreciate that the requested information falls under the category of “excepted information” under Section 8 of the RTI Act as it relates to investigative proceedings. Moreover, respondent No. 2 has committed grave legal error in holding that the RTI Act has an overriding effect over Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and in thereby, directing the petitioner to provide the required information to respondent No. 3. As such, the impugned order, being unsustainable and bad in law, is liable to be set aside. 5 6. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1/State, would submit that the finding recorded by respondent No. 2 that in light of overriding provision of Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 will have no application, is bad in law. In light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat1, unless and until, it is observed that the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is inconsistent with Section 8 of the RTI Act, it cannot be held that the same has no application in the matter and as such, appropriate order be passed. 7. Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, would support the impugned order and submit that the first Appellate Authority has not assigned any reason for denying the required information with the aid of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and moreover, the respondent No. 2 is justified in holding that by virtue of Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act would have an overriding effect over Section 14 of the Act of 2002. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Shrivastava v. Central 1 (2020) 4 SCC 702 6 Information Commission2 in this regard and submit that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Question for consideration :- 9. The short question involved in this writ petition is, “whether the respondent No. 2 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission is justified in directing the petitioner i.e. Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog to supply information to respondent No. 3 holding that by virtue of Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act would have an overriding effect over Section 14 of the Act of 2002 ?” Aims and Objects of the RTI Act :- 10. Subsequent to enactment of the Act of 2002, the special law i.e. the RTI Act was enacted with the object of ensuring greater and more effective access to information. The Government resolved that the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 enacted by the Parliament needs to be made more progressive, participatory and meaningful. It aims to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for 2 2021 SCC Online Del 336 7 citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Relevant provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Adhiniyam, 2002 :- 11. Before entering into the issue of secrecy of information, one must appreciate the definition of ‘information’ as provided under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which provides as under :- “2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. - (f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;” 12. The RTI Act further provides for exemption from disclosure of information in the form of Section 8. For the purpose of the present case, Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) are being reproduced below :- 8 “8. Exemption from disclosure of information. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, - (a) to (f) (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;” 13. Section 22 of the RTI Act provides for overriding effect over other Acts, which states as under :- “22. Act to have overriding effect. – The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” 14. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice the provision contained under Section 14(1) of the Act of 2002, which provides as under :- “14. Secrecy of Information. – (1) Any information obtained in the course of an inquiry by the Lok Aayog, members of its staff or a person or agency whose services are utilized by the Lok Aayog for conducting inquiries in respect of any complaint, and any evidence recorded or collected in connection with such information shall be treated as confidential.” 9 Judicial pronouncements :- 15. The issue involved herein with regard to the applicability of Section 22 of the RTI Act has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner (supra) whereby it has been by their Lordships that in case of inconsistency of any law with the provisions of the RTI Act, overriding effect has been given to the provisions of the RTI Act and it has been observed in paragraphs 33 to 36 as under :- “33. Section 22 of the RTI Act lays down that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the requirement under Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules of filing an affidavit stating the grounds for seeking the information is directly contrary to Section 6(2) of the RTI Act and there is direct inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules and in the event of conflict between the provisions of the RTI Act and any other law made by Parliament or a State Legislature or any other authority, the RTI Act must prevail. 34. 34. In the non obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTI Act, three categories have been mentioned: (i) the Official Secrets Act, 1923; and (ii) any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. In case of inconsistency of any law with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, overriding 10 effect has been given to the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Section 31 of the RTI Act which is a repealing clauserepeals only the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. The Right to Information Act has not repealed the Official Secrets Act or any of the laws providing confidentiality which prohibits the authorities to disclose information. Therefore, all those enactments including Official Secrets Act, 1923 continue to be in force. This Act however, has an overriding effect to the extent they are inconsistent. 35. The non obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean an implied repeal of the High Court Rules and orders framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India: but only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. b overridden by a enactment simply because the latter opens up with a non obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka3 wherein, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp. 356-57, para 38) "38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India4, Sabyasachi Mukharji. J. (as his Lordship then was) observed thus: (SCC p. 153, para 38) 38…. As mentioned hereinbefore if the Scheme was held to be valid, then the question what is the general law and what is the special law and which law in case of conflict would prevail would have arisen and that would have necessitated the application of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant". The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied: "(i) The two are inconsistent with each other. (ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment." 3 (1992) 1 SCC 335 4 (1984) 3 SCC 127 11 If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail." " 36. As pointed out earlier, Section 31 of the RTI Act repeals only the f Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. If the intention of the legislature was to repeal any other Acts or laws which deal with the dissemination of information to an applicant, then the RTI Act would have clearly specified so. In the absence of any provision to this effect, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted so as to attribute a meaning to them which was not intended by the legislature. In the RTI Act, there is no specific reference to the rules framed by the various High Courts or any other special law excepting the Freedom of Information Act, 2002.” 16. Similarly, in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal5, it has been held that Section 22 of the RTI Act contains a non obstante clause and stipulates that the RTI Act has an overriding effect over laws and it has been observed in paragraphs 22 and 171 as under :- “22. When information is accessible by a public authority, that is, held or under its control, then the information must be furnished to the information another statute already in force or under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. seeker under the RTI Act even if there are conditions or prohibitions under prohibits access to information by the public. In view of the non obstante clause in Section 226 of the RTI Act, any prohibition of condition which prevents a citizen 5 (2020) 5 SCC 481 6 Section 22 of the RTI Act reads: “22. Act to have overriding effect. - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secretsh Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." 12 from having access to information would not apply. Restriction on the right of citizens is erased. However, when access to information by a public authority itself is prohibited or is accessible subject to conditions, then the prohibition is not obliterated and the preconditions are not erased. Section 2(f) read with Section 22 of the RTI Act does not bring any modification or amendment in any other enactment, which bars or prohibits or imposes precondition for accessing information of the private bodies. Rather, clause (f) to Section 2 upholds and accepts the said position when it uses the expression - "which can be accessed", that is, the public authority should be in a position and be entitled to ask for the said information. Section 22 of the RTI Act, an overriding provision, does not militate against the interpretation as there is no contradiction or conflict between the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and other statutory enactments/law. Section 22 enactment on the right of a citizen to access information which is accessible by of the RTI Act is a key that unlocks prohibitions/limitations in any prior a public authority. It is not a key with the public authority that can be used to 0 access information. In other words, a private body will be entitled to the same undo and erase prohibitions/limitations on the right of the public authority to protection as is available to them under the laws of this country.” 171. Section 22 contains a non obstance clause and stipulates that the t to impart priority to the salient objectives of the Act and ensure that where RTI Act has an overriding effect over laws. The import of this provision is information is held by or is under the control of a public authority, such not obviate legal restrictions that apply to a public authority to the access to any in any other law in force at that time. It is pertinent to state that Section 22 does information must be furnished to the applicant notwithstanding any prohibition information which is clarified by the use of the phrase "which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force" in Section 2(f). 13 Discussion and Analysis :- 17. In the facts of the present case, respondent No. 2 has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 by impugned order dated 28/05/2021 (Annexure P-1) on the following three grounds :- (i) that, the authorities below have denied information with the aid of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, however, no reason whatsoever has been stated as to how these provisions will be attracted. (ii) that, the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is applicable only during the course of enquiry. However, the respondent No. 2 found that since the case was already disposed of, the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 14 will not be applicable. Hence, denial of information is bad in law. (iii) that, Section 14 of the Act of 2002 will not be applicable in light of Section 22 of the RTI Act. 18. Though the authorities below have not stated that how providing information will endanger life or physical safety, as required under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, however, the finding of respondent No. 2 that the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and Section 14 of the Act of 2002 are 14 inapplicable since the investigation/enquiry have already concluded is without any basis and there is no material to hold so and, therefore, it is bad in law. Moreover, respondent No. 2 has held that in light of overriding provision of Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 will have no application is also bad in law. It is held that unless and until, it is observed that the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is inconsistent with Section 8 of the RTI Act, it cannot be held that the same has no application in the matter, as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner (supra). It has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that matter that Section 22 only provides for overriding effect of provisions of the RTI Act on other laws in force but the same does not repeal the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Therefore, unless Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is held inconsistent with Section 8 of the Act of 2005, it will continue to be applicable. 19. As a result and fallout of the aforesaid legal discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28/05/2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2 is unsustainable and bad in law and therefore, it is hereby set 15 aside and the application filed by respondent No. 3 is accordingly held dismissed. 20. In view of the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet