9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1440 - SC - Indian LawsRight of a third party to apply for certified copies to be obtained from the High Court by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act without resorting to Gujarat High Court Rules prescribed by the High Court - requirement to file an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking certified copies suffers from any inconsistency with the provisions of RTI Act - When there are two machineries to provide information/certified copies - one under the High Court Rules and Anr. under the RTI Act in the absence of any inconsistency in the High Court Rules whether the provisions of RTI Act can be resorted to for obtaining certified copy/information? HELD THAT - In the present case we are concerned with Gujarat High Court Rules. Grant of certified copies to parties to the litigation and third parties are governed by Rules 149 to 154 of Gujarat High Court Rules. As per the Rules on filing of application with prescribed court fees stamp litigants/parties to the proceedings are entitled to receive the copies of documents/orders/judgments etc. The third parties who are not parties in any of the proceedings shall not be given the copies of judgments and other documents without the order of the Assistant Registrar. As per Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules the applications requesting for copies of documents/judgments made by third parties shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which they are required. The object of the RTI Act itself recognizes the need to protect the institutional interest and also to make optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The procedure to obtain certified copies under the High Court Rules is not cumbersome and the procedure is very simple - filing of an application/affidavit along with the requisite court fee stating the reasons for seeking the information. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side are the personal information of the litigants like title cases and family court matters etc. Under the guise of seeking information under the RTI Act the process of the court is not to be abused and information not to be misused. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side are the personal information of the parties to the litigation or information furnished by the Government in relation to a particular case. There may be information held by the High Court relating to the cases which have been obtained from the various tribunals in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For instance the matters arising out of the orders by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other tribunals over which the High Court exercises the supervisory jurisdiction - Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules also stipulate the same procedure insofar as the third party seeking certified copy of the documents/records. There are no merit in the submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which in our view is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid. Thus the conclusion is summarised as below (i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but 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. (ii) 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. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Inconsistency between Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Applicability of the RTI Act for obtaining certified copies/information when High Court Rules provide an alternative mechanism. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Inconsistency between Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 Background: - An RTI application was filed seeking certified copies of certain documents from the Gujarat High Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) directed the applicant to follow the Gujarat High Court Rules, which require an affidavit stating the grounds for seeking such copies. - The applicant's appeals to the Appellate Authority and the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) were dismissed, leading to further appeals and the involvement of the Supreme Court. Legal Arguments: - Appellant's Argument: The RTI Act, specifically Section 6(2), does not require applicants to provide reasons for seeking information, which conflicts with Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules that mandates an affidavit stating the grounds for the request. Section 22 of the RTI Act provides an overriding effect over any other law. - Respondent's Argument: The Gujarat High Court Rules are not inconsistent with the RTI Act. They merely provide a procedural requirement for third parties to obtain certified copies, ensuring that information is sought for bona fide reasons. Supreme Court's Analysis: - The Court examined the definitions and scope of "information" and "public authority" under the RTI Act. - It noted that the High Court Rules are framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and provide a specific mechanism for obtaining certified copies. - The Court observed that the Rules do not deny information but require an affidavit to ensure the request is bona fide. - The Court emphasized the need to balance transparency with the protection of sensitive information and the efficient functioning of public authorities. Conclusion: - Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules is not inconsistent with the RTI Act. It merely lays down a different procedure for obtaining certified copies, which is not inherently contradictory to the RTI Act's provisions. Issue 2: Applicability of the RTI Act for obtaining certified copies/information when High Court Rules provide an alternative mechanism Background: - The High Court Rules provide a mechanism for parties and third parties to obtain certified copies of documents and judgments by filing an application with requisite fees and an affidavit. - The issue was whether the RTI Act could be invoked when the High Court Rules already provide a mechanism for obtaining such information. Legal Arguments: - Appellant's Argument: The RTI Act should prevail over the High Court Rules due to its overriding effect as per Section 22, which aims to promote transparency and accountability. - Respondent's Argument: The High Court Rules provide an effective and simple procedure for obtaining information, and the RTI Act should not be used to duplicate or bypass this established mechanism. Supreme Court's Analysis: - The Court referred to previous judgments, including those of the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court, which held that if information can be accessed through another statutory mechanism, the RTI Act should not be resorted to. - The Court noted that the High Court Rules ensure that third parties can obtain information by following a simple procedure, which includes filing an application/affidavit. - The Court emphasized that the RTI Act's objective is to harmonize transparency with other public interests, including the efficient functioning of public authorities and the preservation of confidentiality. Conclusion: - The provisions of the RTI Act should not be invoked when the High Court Rules provide an effective mechanism for obtaining information. The RTI Act does not imply an implied repeal of the High Court Rules but has an overriding effect only in case of inconsistency. Summary of Conclusion: 1. Inconsistency: Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, requiring an affidavit for third parties seeking certified copies, is not inconsistent with the RTI Act. It ensures that information requests are bona fide without obstructing access to information. 2. Applicability: The RTI Act should not be resorted to when the High Court Rules provide a specific mechanism for obtaining information. The established procedure under the High Court Rules is effective and aligns with the objectives of the RTI Act. Final Judgment: - The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's order, dismissing the appeals and affirming that the High Court Rules' mechanism for obtaining certified copies should be followed. The Court acknowledged the valuable assistance provided by the amicus curiae.
|
