Supreme Court clarifies the use of RTI Act for obtaining High Court documents: Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 04, 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 221

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a person use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to get certified copies of court documents from a High Court, or should they follow the High Court’s own rules? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Chief Information Commissioner and the High Court of Gujarat. The core issue was whether the RTI Act overrides the High Court’s rules regarding the process for obtaining certified copies of documents. This judgment clarifies the relationship between the RTI Act and the High Court’s rules, establishing that when specific rules exist for accessing information, those rules should be followed. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case began when an individual (Respondent No. 2) filed an RTI application on April 5, 2010, seeking information and certified copies of documents related to two civil cases from the High Court of Gujarat. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the High Court responded on April 29, 2010, stating that to obtain the copies, the individual needed to apply in person or through an advocate, pay a court fee of Rs. 3, and comply with Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. These rules require a third party (someone not involved in the case) to submit an affidavit explaining why they need the documents.

Dissatisfied with this response, the individual appealed to the Appellate Authority-Registrar Administration under Section 19 of the RTI Act. The appeal was dismissed on August 4, 2010, on the grounds that the Gujarat High Court Rules provided an alternative method for obtaining certified copies and that the RTI Act did not apply.

The individual then filed a second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC). The CIC, on April 4, 2013, directed the High Court’s PIO to provide the requested information within 20 days, relying on Sections 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act.

The High Court of Gujarat challenged the CIC’s order by filing a Special Civil Application. A single judge initially ordered the High Court to provide the information but clarified that this did not mean the RTI Act applied to the High Court. The High Court then filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the interim order. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, stating that when specific rules govern a field, those rules should be followed, and the RTI Act should not be used to create confusion.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case initially went before a single judge of the High Court, who passed an interim order directing the High Court to provide the information, while clarifying that this did not imply the applicability of the RTI Act to the High Court. This interim order was challenged by the High Court through a Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court overturned the single judge’s order, holding that when a particular field is governed by specific rules, those rules must be followed. The Division Bench emphasized that the High Court Rules, which require an affidavit from third parties seeking copies, should be adhered to, and the RTI Act should not be invoked in this context. This decision led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. The key provisions of the RTI Act include:

• Section 2(f) of the RTI Act: Defines “information” as “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”
• Section 2(h) of the RTI Act: Defines “public authority” broadly to include bodies established by or under the Constitution, by any law made by Parliament or State Legislature, or by notification or order of the appropriate Government.
• Section 2(i) of the RTI Act: Defines “record” inclusively to mean “any document, manuscript and file; any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and any other material produced by a computer or any other device.”
• Section 2(j) of the RTI Act: Defines “right to information” as “the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to inspection of work, documents, records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; taking certified samples of material; obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.”
• Section 6(2) of the RTI Act: States that an applicant seeking information is not required to give any reason for the request.
• Section 8(1) of the RTI Act: Provides exemptions from disclosure of information, including information that would affect the sovereignty or integrity of India, breach parliamentary privilege, or involve personal information without public interest.
• Section 22 of the RTI Act: Contains a non-obstante clause, stating that the RTI Act will have an overriding effect over any other law in force.

The Gujarat High Court Rules, specifically Rules 149 to 154, govern the procedure for obtaining certified copies of documents. Rule 151 states that third parties must submit an affidavit stating the grounds for requiring the copies. This rule is central to the dispute, as it contrasts with Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, which does not require reasons for seeking information.

The Supreme Court also considered Article 225 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to frame their own rules. Additionally, the Court noted that under Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has framed its own rules regarding the practice and procedure of the Court, including the process for obtaining certified copies.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Chief Information Commissioner):

• The appellant argued that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act grants a substantive right to information without requiring any reason for the request.
• It was contended that Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, which requires third parties to provide reasons for seeking certified copies, is inconsistent with the RTI Act.
• The appellant submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act gives it an overriding effect over any other law, including the High Court Rules.
• The appellant relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal [2019 (16) SCALE 40], to emphasize the supremacy of the RTI Act.

Intervenors’ Arguments:

• The intervenors contended that allowing access to information under the RTI Act would not prejudice the privacy of other parties or the administration of justice.
• They supported the appellant’s argument that the RTI Act, being a general law for transparency, should prevail over the High Court Rules.
• The intervenors also relied on Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain [2019 SCC Online SC 764] and the Constitution Bench judgment in Subhash Chandra Agrawal.

Respondent’s Arguments (High Court of Gujarat):

• The respondent argued that the Gujarat High Court Rules do not contradict Section 22 of the RTI Act.
• It was submitted that Rule 151 is in consonance with the RTI Act, and the respondent was only asked to follow the procedure under the High Court Rules.
• The respondent contended that when an effective remedy is available under the High Court Rules, the RTI Act cannot be invoked.
• The respondent argued that the High Court rightly quashed the order of the Chief Information Commissioner.

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments:

• The amicus curiae explained that High Court Rules are framed under Article 225 of the Constitution and provide a mechanism for furnishing information, including certified copies.
• It was submitted that the High Court Rules allow for third parties to obtain information by filing an affidavit stating reasonable grounds.
• The amicus curiae argued that there is no inconsistency between the RTI Act and the High Court Rules, and Section 22 of the RTI Act does not override laws that also aim to ensure access to information.
• The amicus curiae referenced judgments from the Delhi High Court in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. RS Misra [(2017) 244 DLT 179] and the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Information Commissioner v. State Public Information Officer and another [WP(C) No.9418 of 2008], to support the position that information should be accessed through the mechanism provided under the relevant rules.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which requires third parties to file an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking certified copies, is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act.
2. When there are two mechanisms for providing information/certified copies (one under the High Court Rules and another under the RTI Act), and in the absence of any inconsistency in the High Court Rules, whether the provisions of the RTI Act can be used to obtain certified copies/information.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 124 of the Constitution of India: Relates to the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court.
• Article 145 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating its practice and procedure.
• Article 216 of the Constitution of India: Relates to the constitution of High Courts.
• Article 225 of the Constitution of India: Empowers High Courts to frame their own rules.
• Article 227 of the Constitution of India: Grants High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over other courts and tribunals.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal [2019 (16) SCALE 40]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that while it upheld the disclosure of assets by judges, it did not address the issue of whether the RTI Act overrides specific rules for obtaining information from High Courts.
• Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain [2019 SCC Online SC 764]: The Court used this case to highlight that the RTI Act aims to ensure transparency and accountability but also to harmonize conflicting public interests.
• Raj Kumar Yadav v. Samir Kumar Mahaseth and Others [(2005) 3 SCC 601]: The Court considered the principle that rules framed by the High Court under Article 225 cannot curtail any substantive law.
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and Others [(2011) 8 SCC 781]: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need to balance transparency with other public interests, and that the RTI Act should not be read in a restrictive manner.
• The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra [(2017) 244 DLT 179]: The Court followed this judgment, endorsing the view that when information can be accessed through a mechanism under another statute, the RTI Act should not be used.
• State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar (Establishment) v. Karnataka Information Commission and Another [WP No.26763 of 2013 dated 09.01.2019]: The Court noted that this case also supported the view that the RTI Act cannot be resorted to when another mechanism for accessing information is available.
• R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 335]: The Court used this case to discuss how a later general law does not override a prior special law unless there is a clear inconsistency.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others [(2013) 1 SSC 212]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that personal information, like income tax returns, is exempted from disclosure unless a larger public interest is involved.

The Supreme Court held that Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, which requires third parties to file an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking certified copies, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Court emphasized that the High Court Rules do not prohibit the dissemination of information or the granting of certified copies but merely stipulate a different procedure. The Court stated that the non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act does not mean an implied repeal of the High Court Rules but only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency.

The Court also held that when a specific mechanism exists under the High Court Rules for obtaining information, the provisions of the RTI Act should not be resorted to. The Court noted that the High Court Rules provide a simple procedure for obtaining certified copies, which involves filing an application/affidavit with the requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required. The Court found no justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act, which deals with third-party information, as it would be a more cumbersome process.

The Court observed that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. However, the Court also recognized the need to protect institutional interests, make optimum use of limited fiscal resources, and preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information.

The Court concluded that the High Court Rules are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and that there is no inherent inconsistency between the two.

The Court quoted from Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and Others [(2011) 8 SCC 781]: “Therefore, when Section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals.”

The Court also quoted from The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra [(2017) 244 DLT 179]: “This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency.”

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the High Court of Gujarat.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance transparency and accountability (as promoted by the RTI Act) with the efficient functioning of the judiciary and the protection of sensitive information. The Court emphasized that while the RTI Act aims to provide access to information, it does not override other laws and rules that provide specific mechanisms for obtaining information, especially when those mechanisms are consistent with the RTI Act’s objectives.

The Court was also concerned about the potential misuse of the RTI Act to access personal information of litigants and the administrative burden it would place on the judiciary if the High Court Rules were bypassed. The Court noted that the High Court Rules are designed to ensure that information is sought for bona fide reasons and to protect the privacy of individuals involved in court proceedings.

The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, noting that the High Court Rules provide a simple and efficient process for obtaining certified copies of documents. The Court also highlighted that the judgments and orders of the High Courts are available on their websites, which promotes transparency and reduces the need for individuals to resort to the RTI Act.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The RTI Act does not override specific rules framed by High Courts for obtaining certified copies of documents.
• Third parties seeking certified copies of documents from High Courts must follow the procedure outlined in the High Court Rules, which may require an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the copies.
• When a specific mechanism exists under another law or rules for accessing information, the RTI Act should not be used to bypass that mechanism.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance transparency with the efficient functioning of the judiciary and the protection of sensitive information.
• The judgment clarifies that the RTI Act is not intended to provide an additional mode for accessing information that is already available through established procedures.

Directions

The Supreme Courtdismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the High Court of Gujarat. The Court directed that the High Court Rules for obtaining certified copies of documents should be followed and that the RTI Act should not be used to bypass those rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat clarifies the interplay between the Right to Information Act and specific rules framed by High Courts for obtaining certified copies of documents. The Court held that the RTI Act does not override the High Court Rules, which provide a specific procedure for accessing such information. The judgment emphasizes the importance of following established procedures and balancing the need for transparency with the efficient functioning of the judiciary. The Court’s decision ensures that the RTI Act is not misused to bypass existing mechanisms for accessing information and that the High Courts can maintain their autonomy in regulating their internal processes. This case serves as a significant precedent for similar situations where specific rules exist for accessing information from public authorities.