The Supreme Court and High Courts are empowered to frame Rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court (under Articles 124 and 225 of the Constitution). These Rules interalia prescribe the procedure for obtaining certified copies of pleadings, judgments, documents, decrees or orders, deposition of witnesses etc by both the parties to the litigation and the non-parties to the litigation (third party). The procedure generally requires the parties to the litigation to file an application along with the prescribed court fee. The third party on the other hand has to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking such information along with the court fee.
A brief Background:
When an RTI application dated 5.4.2010 was filed before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Gujarat High Court (GHC) seeking information pertaining to two civil cases along with certified copies etc, the applicant was informed by the PIO that he should apply as per the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 (GHC Rules). Further, he was also informed that being a third party, he has to file an affidavit stating the grounds for which certified copies are required. Dissatisfied with this reply, the applicant filed an appeal. The first appellate authority dismissed this appeal on the ground that for obtaining certified copies, the alternative efficacious remedy is already available under the GHC Rules and certified copies cannot be provided under the RTI Act. The applicant approached the Information Commission. The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) relying upon Sections 6(2)[1] and 22[2] of the RTI Act vide its order dated 4.4.2013 directed PIO/GHC to provide the requested information within twenty days. The order dated 4.4.2013 of the CIC was challenged before the GHC. The single judge of the GHC gave an interim order directing disclosure of information. This interim order was challenged before the division bench. The division bench set aside the order of the CIC, observing that when a copy is sought by a person, the same has to be in accordance with the Rules of the High Court on the subject.
The matter reached Supreme Court (SC). SC considered the following categories of information available with the High Courts:
| Sl. No | Judicial side information | Administrative side information |
| 1. | Information held by the High Court relating to the parties to the litigation/proceedings – pleadings, documents and other materials and memo of grounds raised by the parties; | Appointments, transfers and postings of the judicial officers, staff members of the High Court and the district judiciary, disciplinary action taken against the judicial officers and the staff members and such other information relating to the administrative work. |
| 2. | Orders and judgments passed by the High Court, notes of proceedings, etc | Correspondence by the High Court with the Supreme Court, Government and with the district judiciary, etc |
| 3. | In exercise of power of superintendence over the other courts and tribunals, information received in the records submitted/called for by those courts and tribunals like subordinate judiciary, various tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other tribunals; | Information on the administrative side as to the decision taken by the collegium of the High Court in making recommendations of the Judges to be appointed to the High Court; information as to the assets of the sitting Judges held by the Chief Justice of the High Court. |
And dismissed the following contentions made by the counsel of the appellant:
| Sl. No. | Contention | Ground for overruling |
| 1. | The requirement of the Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules of filing an affidavit stating the grounds for seeking information is inconsistent with Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which requires that the Applicant is not required to provide reasons for seeking information and in case of inconsistency RTI Act must prevail. | Gujarat High Court Rules neither prohibit nor forbid disclosure of information or grant of certified copies. The difference is only in so far as stipulation of filing an application/affidavit or payment of fees, is concerned, there is no inconsistency between the two provisions, the RTI Act has no overriding effect over Rule 151 of Gujarat High Court Rules. |
| 2. | Information held by the High Court may be supplied to the applicant by following Section 11 procedure of the RTI Act, which requires the CPIO to issue a written notice to the third party in case the CPIO intends to disclose the information. | Section 11 procedure is a cumbersome procedure. A simple procedure under High Court Rules is already available. Invoking Section 11 would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid |
SC Decision:
1.Rule 151 of the GHC Rules requiring a third party to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking information, merely lays down a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
2. The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.
Conclusion:
It is interesting to note that under the RTI Act, the RTI Applicant is not required to disclose the reason for seeking a particular information, whereas, as aforesaid, the Court Rules require the same from a third party. SC, however, in its latest judgment of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat and another[3] decided that there is no inconsistency between the Court Rules and the RTI Act and held that for the information held on judicial side (irrespective of whether it is being sought by the party to the litigation or the non-party), the relevant High Court/Supreme Court Rules will apply. Resultantly, an RTI Applicant can employ the RTI Act to only seek the administrative side information held by the Courts.
[1] Section 6(2) of the RTI Act-An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.
[2] Section 22 of the RTI Act- 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.
[3] Civil Appeal Nos.1966-1967 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 5840 of 2015) dated 4.3.2020
6 Comments
Comments are closed.