Synopsis

This judgment by the Delhi High Court dismisses a writ petition filed by the Supreme Court of India challenging an order of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The petitioner, a public authority, had directly approached the High Court under Article 226 without availing the statutory remedy of a second appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC). The court held that a "public authority" is included within the meaning of the term "person" under Section 19 of the RTI Act and therefore has the right to file a second appeal before the CIC. Consequently, an efficacious alternative remedy existed, and the writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to file an appeal before the CIC and excluding the time spent in the writ proceedings. This is one of a series of identical judgments delivered on the same day concerning similar petitions filed by the Supreme Court of India.

1. Heading for the judgment

Citation: Supreme Court of India v. Harsh Kumar Vashisht, W.P.(C) 2832/2026, decided on 17.03.2026 (Delhi High Court)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav (Single Judge)
Core Law: Right to Information Act, 2005 (Sections 2(h), 19); General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 3(42)).

Delhi High Court holds that a public authority is a "person" under Section 19 of RTI Act, can file second appeal before CIC, and must exhaust statutory remedy before approaching writ court.

2. Legal framework

This judgment deals with the interpretation of the term "person" under the RTI Act and the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies.

• Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act):
  Section 2(h): Defines "public authority."
  Section 19(1): Provides for a first appeal by "any person" aggrieved by the de

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.