Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Chief Information Commissioner against a Gujarat High Court Division Bench order that set aside the CIC's direction to provide information under the RTI Act. The dispute arose from an RTI application filed by a third party (respondent No.2) seeking certified copies of certain civil applications and documents from the Gujarat High Court. The Public Information Officer of the High Court replied that the applicant should apply under the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, specifically Rules 149-154, which require a third party to file an affidavit stating the grounds for requiring the copies. The applicant appealed to the Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeal, and then to the CIC. The CIC, relying on Sections 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act, directed the High Court to provide the information. The High Court challenged this order, and the Division Bench quashed the CIC's order, holding that the High Court Rules govern the supply of certified copies and the RTI Act cannot be invoked. The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether the RTI Act overrides the High Court Rules. The appellant argued that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act prohibits requiring reasons for information requests, and Section 22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over any other law, including High Court Rules. The respondent High Court contended that the Rules are not inconsistent with the RTI Act and provide an efficacious remedy. The amicus curiae submitted that there is no inconsistency and that the Rules also aim to ensure access to information. The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and the Constitution Bench judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, held that Section 22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect over any other law, including High Court Rules. The Court found that Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, requiring an affidavit stating grounds, is inconsistent with Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, which prohibits requiring reasons. Therefore, the RTI Act prevails, and the CIC's order was correct. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order, and restored the CIC's direction to provide the information within twenty days.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Overriding Effect - Section 22 of RTI Act - Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 contains a non-obstante clause giving it overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force, including High Court Rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution. In case of conflict, RTI Act prevails. (Paras 2, 9, 10) B) Right to Information - Reasons for Request - Section 6(2) of RTI Act - Section 6(2) of the RTI Act prohibits requiring an applicant to give reasons for requesting information. Rule 151 of Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 requiring a third party to file an affidavit stating grounds for certified copies is inconsistent with Section 6(2). (Paras 9, 10) C) Right to Information - Access to Judicial Records - RTI Act vs. High Court Rules - The RTI Act applies to public authorities including High Courts. The mechanism for obtaining certified copies under High Court Rules cannot override the RTI Act. The appellant (Chief Information Commissioner) correctly directed the High Court to provide information under the RTI Act. (Paras 2, 5, 9, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a third party can apply for certified copies from the High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 without resorting to the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, and whether Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides the High Court Rules.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Gujarat High Court Division Bench, and restored the order of the Chief Information Commissioner dated 04.04.2013 directing the Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court to provide the information sought by respondent No.2 within twenty days.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 22 overrides High Court Rules
- Section 6(2) prohibits requiring reasons for information request
- Non-obstante clause in Section 22
- Harmonious construction not possible when direct inconsistency exists
