Bombay HC denies RTI request for structural audit information, says it will endanger judges' lives

Bombay High Court/ File Photo

The public information officer of the Bombay High Court has rejected a Right to Information (RTI) application pertaining to the structural audits of the court's heritage building in south Mumbai, stated a PTI report. Reportedly, the decision was based on the claim that divulging such information could jeopardise the safety of the judges and other officials.

Environmental activist Zoru Bathena, who had lodged the RTI request, sought copies of the most recent three structural audits conducted on both the main and annexe buildings of the Bombay High Court, the report stated. Bathena's purpose was to use this information in a separate case concerning the restoration of the 135-year-old reservoir at Malabar Hill in south Mumbai.

After Chandrayan 3, ISRO now prepping to launch Aditya L1 mission to the sun in August

1 year agoPHOTO GALLERY

Explaining his motive, Bathena pointed out that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation had contended that the reservoir was beyond repair and needed reconstruction. To counter this argument, he wanted to present the illustrations of the HC and BMC headquarters buildings, both over a century old but undergoing repair rather than reconstruction.

"The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation claimed that the reservoir was beyond repair and needed to be reconstructed. We wanted to give examples of the high court building and the BMC's headquarters building, which are also over a century old but are being repaired and not reconstructed," Bathena was quoted as saying.

The activist claimed while he had received the structural audit reports for the BMC building, the high court declined to disclose it.

The response from the high court's public information officer, dated November 1, rejected Bathena's application, citing that the requested information was not linked to broader public activities or interests.

The reply stated, "The information sought is exempted from disclosure for security purposes. The information sought is also exempted as disclosure of the same would endanger the life or physical safety of the Hon'ble judges and officials of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court."

Furthermore, the response stated that the information was held within a "fiduciary relationship," emphasizing the importance of preserving the confidentiality of such sensitive data.

The public information officer concluded, "No larger public interest is demonstrated in your application. Hence, the information sought cannot be disclosed in view of exemption from disclosure under section 8(1) (e) of the Right to Information Act."

According to the report, Bathena said he will file an appeal against the refusal with concerned appellate authority.