1 2026:CGHC:15294-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 171 of 2026 Nandkishor Singh S/o Ramashish Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Village- Deoridih Police Station Torwa District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Ministry Of Home Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and validity of the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.03 16:11:18 +0530 2 impugned rejection letter dated 17.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been denied by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned rejection letter dated 17.03.2026 issued by Respondent No.3. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to provide the information sought by the petitioner in his RTI application dated 23.02.2026. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioner, father of accused Rajrishi Singh, has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned rejection letter dated 17.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the criminal antecedents of the complainant, namely Babita Dewangan, in connection with Crime No. 138/2025 registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur, has been denied by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Act on the ground that the same constitutes personal information. It is the 3 case of the petitioner that his son is in judicial custody in the aforesaid crime and the said information is necessary for the purpose of effective defence in the pending sessions trial, particularly when the matter is fixed for cross-examination of the complainant; however, despite the relevance of the information, the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the RTI application, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection letter dated 17.03.2026 is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, as the respondents have mechanically invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 without proper application of mind. It is contended that the information sought pertains to the criminal antecedents of the complainant, which forms part of public record and cannot be treated as “personal information” so as to deny its disclosure. He would further submit that the said information is essential for ensuring a fair trial of the petitioner’s son, particularly when the case is at the stage of cross-examination of the complainant, and non- disclosure thereof would cause serious prejudice to the defence, thereby infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned rejection letter has been passed strictly in accordance with law by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the information sought by the petitioner pertains to the alleged criminal antecedents of a third party, which falls within the ambit of “personal information” and is exempted from disclosure. It is contended that there 4 is no larger public interest involved in the present case so as to warrant disclosure of such information and the petitioner cannot seek to indirectly collect material for defence in a criminal trial by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. ******* It is further submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, which provides a complete mechanism of appeal against the order passed by the Public Information Officer. Learned State counsel would submit that as per Section 19(1), any person aggrieved by such decision may prefer an appeal within thirty days before an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer, and thereafter, under Section 19(3), a second appeal lies before the State Information Commission within ninety days. It is thus contended that without exhausting the said statutory remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Hon’ble Court, and on this ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned rejection of the petitioner’s RTI application has been made by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that the information sought pertains to personal information of a third party. 8. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the controversy, as an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available to 5 the petitioner under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, which provides a complete mechanism for redressal of grievance against an order passed by the Public Information Officer, including first appeal before the senior officer and second appeal before the State Information Commission. 9. It is well settled that when a statutory remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked, unless exceptional circumstances are made out, which are absent in the present case. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being premature, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved