| Civil Appeal No. | 1966-1967 of 2020 |
| Appellant | Chief Information Officer |
| Respondent | High Court of Gujarat and Another |
| Jurisdiction | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S Bopanna |
INTRODUCTION
The case of Chief Information Officer v. High Court of Gujarat and Anrs. 2020, is considered to be a landmark case, where the Supreme Court ruled that certified copies pertaining to judicial courts should be obtained only through the procedures set out by the High Court concerned, and not according to the Right to Information Act, 2005.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- An RTI application was filed by the respondent No. 2, dated 5.4.2010 (5th April, 2010), seeking information relating two cases, that is, Application No. 5517 of 2003 and Civil Application No. 8072 of 1989, with all their relevant documents and certified copies.
- In retaliation, the Gujarat High Court Public Information Officer sent a letter dated 29.4.2010, informing respondent No. 2 that to obtain the copies he would have to personally or through an advocate affix court fees stamp of Rs.3 and pay the required fee to the “Deputy Registrar”.
- It was further noted that as the respondent No. 2 was not a party to the court proceedings of the case. According to Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993, the application of the respondent no. 2 had to be accompanied by an affidavit, presenting the grounds as to why the certified copies were needed. After making such an application the respondent would be supplied with the copies according to Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993.
- Respondent no. 2 filed Appeal No. 84 of 2010 before the Appellate authority of the Registrar Administration under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the process of obtaining certified copies is laid down in the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993, and that certified copies cannot be obtained under the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
- Then Second Appeal No. 1437 of 2010-11 was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Appellant Chief Information Officer. And the notice was sent to respondent No. 1, i.e., the High Court of Gujarat. Respondent No. 1 filed in reiteration, maintaining the same position that if anyone wants to obtain certified copies, they have to adhere to the Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, which included filing an application/affidavit stating the reason for obtaining the certified copies with required court fees stamp.
- Relying on section 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner (appellant) directed the Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court to provide the information sought by the respondent No. 2 within 20 days.
- The respondent No. 1 filed a Special Civil Application No. 7880 of 2013 before the High Court, contesting the order of Chief Information Commissioner. The single learned Judge of the High Court upheld the Chief Information Commissioner’s order and directed respondent No. 1 to provide the information sought by respondent No. 2 within four weeks time.
- Aggrieved respondent No. 1 preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1348 of 2013, contending before a division bench, that if a person wants to obtain certified copies from the court, those persons have to adhere to the Gujarat High Court rules 1993 (Rules 149 to 150).
ISSUES RAISED
In this case, two major issues were raised before the court.
i) Whether there is a discrepancy between Rule 151 of The Gujarat High Court Rules 1993 and the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Rule 151 states that in order to obtain certified copies from the court, the individual, in addition, has to submit an affidavit stating the reasons for obtaining the documents ?
ii) When there are two machinery present, that of, the High Court Rules and RTI Act, with the absence of any inconsistency in the High Court Rules, can the provisions of the RTI Act be applied for obtaining certified copies ?
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
The arguments raised from the appellant side are as follows:
- The RTI Act mentions that the individual does not have to furnish reasons for obtaining information. Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act 2005 states that, “An applicant making a 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.”
- The learned counsel of the appellant contended that holistic interpretation of these two statutes is difficult due to the contradiction between them. The counsel also contended that in circumstances when there is a discrepancy between the RTI Act and any other legislation enacted by the Parliament or any other relevant authority, the provisions of the former must be adhered to.
- It was also submitted that according to section 22 of the RTI Act 2005, the provisions of RTI Act will take precedence over any other legislation over the time being. The counsel cited the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal 2019, supporting their argument that the provisions of RTI Act will override the provisions of the High Court Rules.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The arguments raised from the respondent’s side are as follows:
- The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 (i.e.,Gujarat High Court) that the provisions of Gujarat High Court Rules 1993 are not in contravention with section 22 of the RTI Act 2005, and that the Rule 151 of Gujarat High Court Rules is in consonance with the RTI Act.
- They also argued that respondent No. 2 was only directed to submit an affidavit stating its reason for obtaining the certified copies because it was not a party to the proceedings, and the provisions of RTI Act cannot be invoked.
RATIONALE
The learned court gathered information about the process of delivering certified copies of orders/judgements/documents of different High Courts. The parties to the proceedings can access these documents whereas any third-part to the proceedings has to submit an affidavit stating their reasons for obtaining the documents. No documents or certified copies will not be furnished to anyone who was not a party to the proceedings without the authorisation of the Assistant Registrar. The court held that if any third-party requests for copies of documents, must be accompanied with an affidavit, unless the individual is presented by or on behalf of the government, or any state, or any foreign state. The court also noted that no third-party to the case was barred from obtaining any document, they just had to file an application stating their reasons, to maintain the confidentiality of the documents at hand.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 stated that the act has an overriding effect, whereas the High Court rules were decided to take precedence in matters of delivering documents of the High Court.
INFERENCE
After taking into consideration the above mentioned information the court pronounced the following judgement:
The court was of the opinion that there was no reason to resort to a tedious procedure of obtaining the certified copies under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, when there was a more efficacious alternative present under the Gujarat High Court Rules of 1993. In the court’s view the filing of an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the documents along with the requisite court stamp fee was the simpler way to resort to when obtaining certified copies from the court. They did not find any reason to invoke the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the delivery of documents.
The court also declared that the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993 were not inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005, and that the Rule 151 is in consonance with the RTI Act. There was no discrepancy between the two statutes, hence, the overriding effect of the RTI Act would not apply.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.3.14 of the Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 was confirmed and the appeals were dismissed.
Name of the Author: Vidushi Srivastava
College: Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU, Delhi