High Court Rules restrict power of RTI

The 15-year-old Right to Information Act [RTI] has received a jolt with the Supreme Court recently deciding that High Court Rules prevails over provisions of the RTI Act as far as it relates to the judicial side of courts. In Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court of Gujarat, the Supreme Court has said that if a citizen wants information from the judicial side of a High Court, he or she has to comply with the respective High Court Rules and not the Rules prescribed under the RTI Act.

A citizen filed an RTI application with the Gujarat High Court seeking copies of documents relating to a case pending in the court. The applicant was not a party to the case. The court’s Public Information Officer [PIO] informed the applicant that to obtain copies, he had to follow High Court rules, like affixing court fee stamp, pay cost as per Rules, furnish reasons under an affidavit, etc. The RTI applicant appealed to the Appellate Authority of the Gujarat High Court, which dismissed the appeal and it, too, reiterated that High Court Rules be followed to obtain the information. This was challenged in the Gujarat State Information Commission [GSIC], which directed the PIO of Gujarat HC to provide the required documents. It was now the turn of the PIO to challenge the GSIC’s order in the High Court.

The single judge bench passed an interim order directing the PIO to provide the documents, with the condition that this shall not be construed as acceptance or applicability of RTI Act to the High Court, an issue which will be taken up at the time of the final hearing. Being aggrieved by the interim order, the PIO appealed before the Division Bench through a Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench set aside the order of the GSIC, with the observation that when a copy of the document is demanded, it should be in accordance with High Court Rules. The same was challenged in the Supreme Court.

On behalf of the RTI applicant, it was argued that as per Gujarat HC Rules, those who seek documents should provide reasons, whereas the RTI Act specifically says that an applicant need not reveal the reason for seeking documents. It was argued that in the event of a conflict and if a harmonious construction between High Court Rules and RTI rules is not possible, the RTI rules must prevail over any other law made by Parliament or state legislature or any other authority. The advocates for the RTI applicant also put forth the view that the High Court Rules have been framed under Article 225 of the Constitution and are subject to any law, and Section 22 of the RTI Act would override the High Court Rules. It was stated that Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules is not in consonance with Section 6[2] of the RTI Act.

On behalf of Gujarat High Court, it was argued that when an efficacious remedy is available under Rule 151 of the Gujarat HC Rules, which is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be invoked and therefore it had rightly quashed the order of the GSIC. Quoting the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae who assisted the Supreme Court submitted that once any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under the Statute or the Rules framed, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to.

The two issues before the Supreme Court were whether Gujarat HC Rules suffers from any inconsistency with the provisions of the RTI Act and secondly when two machineries are provided, in the absence of any inconsistency in the High Court Rules, whether RTI can be resorted to.

In an exhaustive analysis of the various provisions of the RTI Act, running to 36 pages the Supreme Court has said that Section 22 of the RTI Act does not repeal Official Secrets Act, 1923, or High Court Rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, but only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. It has observed that a special enactment cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment because the latter opens with a non-obstante clause, unless there is inconsistency between the two legislations.

The Supreme Court has decided that the information held by the High Court on the judicial side is the personal information of the parties to the litigation or information furnished by the government in relation to a particular case.

It has also held that the cumbersome procedure for dealing with third party information under the RTI Act need not be adopted when a simple procedure is available under the High Court Rules. The apex court has decided that Rule 151of Gujarat HC is not inconsistent with RTI Act and copies on the judicial side are to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, without resorting to RTI Act.