RIGHT OF A THIRD PARTY TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE HIGH COURT

RIGHT OF A THIRD PARTY TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE HIGH COURT

Third party can access judgment copy, papers under court rules, not RTI  Act, says SC | India News,The Indian Express 

Chief Information Commissioner V. High Court of Gujarat & Another

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020

 

Background

An RTI application dated 05.04.2010 was filed by respondent No. 2 seeking information pertaining to the cases – Civil Application No. 5517 of 2003 and Civil Application No. 8072 of 1989- along with all relevant documents and certified copies. In reply, vide letter dated 29.04.2010, Public Information Officer, Gujarat High Court duly informed the respondent No. 2 that for obtaining required copies, he should make an application personally or through his advocate on affixing court fees stamp of Rs. 3/- with requisite fee to the "Deputy Registrar". It was further stated that as respondent No. 2 is not a party to the said proceedings, as per Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, his application should be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which the certified copies are required and on making such application, he will be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993.

Subsequently, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal bearing no. 84 of 2010 before the Appellate Authority-Registrar Administration under section 19 of the Act, which was dismissed vide an order dated 04.08.2010, on the ground that for obtaining certified copies, the alternative efficacious remedy is already available under the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and that under the provisions of RTI Act, no certified copies can be provided.

Respondent No. 2 then filed the second appeal No. 1437 of 2010-11 before the Appellant-Chief Information Commissioner and relying upon sections 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act, the appellant-Chief Information Commissioner vide its order dated 04.04.2013 directed Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court to provide the information sought by respondent No. 2 within twenty days.

Subsequently, Special Civil Application No. 7880 of 2013 was filed before the high court, wherein the learned single judge, passed an interim order dated 11.10.2013 directing the Respondent No. 1 to provide the information sought by Respondent No. 2 within four weeks.

Being aggrieved by the interim order, respondent No. 1-High Court of Gujarat preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 before the Division Bench, which set aside the order of the Chief Information Commissioner by observing that when a copy is demanded by any person, the same has to be in accordance with the Rules of the High Court on the subject. The Hon'ble bench understanding that the issue at hand concerned all the high courts, requested Mr. Atmaram N. S Nadkarni acted as amicus curiae.

 

Points For Consideration Before The Hon'ble Bench:

  1. Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, stipulating that for providing copy of documents to the third parties, they are required to file an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking certified copies, suffers from any inconsistency with the provisions of the RTI Act?
  2. When there are two machineries to provide information/certified copies – one under the High Court Rules and another 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?

Judgment

The Hon'ble bench observed that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act provides for exemption from disclosure of information. Right to information is subject to exceptions or exemptions stated in Section 8(1) (a) to 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble bench while analyzing the procedure in respect of grant of the certified copies of pleadings, judgments, documents, decrees or orders, deposition of the witnesses, etc. to the parties to the litigation and also to the third parties, discussed the present scenario, before the hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Hon'ble bench observed:

    1. Procedure before the Supreme Court - "So far as the third parties are concerned, as per Order XIII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, the court on the application of a person who is not a party to the case, appeal or matter, pending or disposed of, may on good cause shown, allow such person to receive such copies as is or are mentioned in the Order XIII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules." Thus, as per the Supreme Court Rules also, the third party is required to show good cause for obtaining certified copies of the documents or orders.
    2. Procedure before the High Court - "The procedure followed for furnishing of copies/certified copies of orders/ documents etc., being information on the judicial side, are governed by the Rules framed by the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the RTI Act is concerned, in exercise of the powers under Section 28 of the RTI Act, various High Courts have framed the Rules under RTI Act and the information on the administrative side of the High Court can be accessed as per the Rules framed by the High Courts under RTI Act."
  • The hon'ble bench also considered the information before it, pertaining to the procedure followed by various high courts for furnishing certified copies of orders/ judgments/documents and observed that, "Insofar as furnishing of certified copies to third parties, the Rules framed by the High Courts stipulate that the certified copies of documents/ orders or judgments or copies of proceedings would be furnished to the third parties only on the orders passed by the court or the Registrar, on being satisfied about the reasonable cause and bona fide of the reasons seeking the information/certified copies of the documents."
  • The hon'ble bench relied upon the following judicial precedents, to emphasize the caution to be exercised at the time of disclosure of information:

          I.   Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others - wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Return are personal information which stand exempted from disclosure, unless it involves a larger public interest which justifies the disclosure of such information.

      ii.   Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and Others - the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, object of the RTI Act is to harmonize the conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and containing corruption on one hand, and at the same time ensuring that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm or adversely affect other public interests which include efficient functioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information.

        iii.   The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra, wherein the hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, once any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to.

Non-Obstante Clause Of Section 22 & Repealing Clause Of Section 31 Of The RTI Act:

 

The Hon'ble bench dwelled upon sections 22 and 31 of the RTI ACT and clarified that, in the non-obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTI Act, three categories have been mentioned - (i) the Official Secrets Act, 1923; or (ii) any other law for the time being in force; and (iii) any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. In case of inconsistency of any law with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, overriding effect has been given to the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Further, Section 31 of the RTI Act which is a repealing clause repeals only the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and no other laws. The Act has not repealed the Official Secrets Act or any of the laws providing disclosure of information. Therefore, all those enactments including Official Secrets Act, 1923, continue to stay in force thereby implying that the RTI Act has an overriding effect to the extent that they are inconsistent.

 

 Also check:

 

Other Links: 

 

About Us: 

 

Quick Enquiry