The Madras High Court heard the case filed by temple activist TR Ramesh against the Public Information Officer of the State, alleging large-scale non-compliance with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department.
The petition came up as Item 34 before the court, with advocate B Jagannath appearing for the petitioner, State Government Pleader (SGP) Arun Natarajan representing the HR&CE Department, and advocate Vigneshwaran Chandrasekar appearing for the State Information Commissioner.
At the outset, the Court recorded that the case was not an adverse litigation. The SGP, in his counter affidavit, submitted that the department was complying with the provisions of the RTI Act and that relevant documents were being uploaded periodically on the official website, https://tnhrce.gov.in .
However, counsel for the petitioner vehemently disputed this claim, contending that several categories of documents including tenders, government orders, reports, estimates, orders under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act, and temple land details, were not being uploaded, constituting a clear violation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. Jagannath argued that the HR&CE Department was obligated to ensure such proactive disclosure within 120 days of the Act’s commencement in 2006, and that even now, more than one lakh scanned documents remained unpublished.
The petitioner further alleged that the Tourism Department too had failed to upload civil works and tender documents, thereby denying public access to key government information.
Observing that Section 4 of the RTI Act mandates all public authorities to proactively publish and host information online, the Court noted that the HR&CE Department was duty-bound to ensure complete transparency.
During the hearing, the SGP stated that he was willing to make a technical presentation in person before the Court to demonstrate the details of documents already uploaded on the HR&CE website.
The Court then directed the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the counter affidavit, along with a typed set of documentary evidence highlighting the specific categories of information that had not been uploaded as required by law.
Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that several complaints filed before the State Information Commission were still pending enquiry, with final orders yet to be passed. The Court directed the State Information Commissioner to expedite the pending hearings and take steps to conclude them at the earliest.
Before adjourning the matter to 20 November 2025, the Court instructed the petitioner to serve advance copies of the reply and supporting documents to all respondents.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.