Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court of Gujarat and Another.

149 to 154 of the Rules, 1993 – The same was upheld by the Appellate Authority Registrar Administration – In the second appeal by respondent no. 2, the appellant-Chief Information commissioner directed Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court to provide the information sought by respondent no. 2 – Challenging the said order, respondent no. 1-High Court filed an application before the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim order directing respondent no. 1 to provide information sought by respondent no. 2 – However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order Chief Information Commissioner by observing that when a particular field is governed by the rules which are not declared ultra-vires, then there is no question of applying the fresh rules and make the situation confusing – Thus, respondent no. 2 has to file an affidavit disclosing the purpose for which the certified copies are required as per the High Court Rules and there is no question of making applications under the RTI Act – On appeal, held: The Gujarat High Court Rules neither prohibit nor forbid dissemination of information or grant of certified copies of records – R. 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 – 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 – The decision of the Division bench of the High Court confirmed.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 requires a third party applicant seeking copies of documents in any civil or criminal proceedings to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for which those documents are required. As such, the High Court Rules do not obstruct a third party from obtaining copies of documents in any court proceedings or any document on the judicial side. It is not as if the information is denied or refused to the applicant. All that is required to be done is to apply for the certified copies with application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information. The reason insisting upon the third party for stating the grounds for obtaining certified copies is to satisfy the court that the information is sought for bona fide reasons or to effectuate public interest. The information is held by the High Court as a trustee for the litigants in order to adjudicate upon the matter and administer justice. The same cannot be permitted by the third party to have access to such personal information of the parties or information given by the Government in the proceedings. Lest, there would be misuse of process of court and the information and it would reach unmanageable levels. If the High Court Rules framed under Article 225 provide a mechanism for invoking the said right in a particular manner, the said mechanism should be preserved and followed. The said mechanism cannot be abandoned or discontinued merely because the general law – RTI Act has been enacted. [Para 27][482-H; 483-A-D]

2. 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. [Para 28][483-E-F]

3. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if the records are received by the High Court from tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it may contain the details disclosed by an assessee in his Income Tax Return. As held in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others (2013) 1 SSC 212, the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Return are personal information which stands exempted from disclosure unless it involves a larger public interest and the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. While seeking information or certified copies of the documents, the High Court Rules which require the third party to a proceeding to file an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, the same cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act in as much as the rejection if any, made thereafter will be for the very reasons as stipulated in Section 8 of the RTI Act. [Para 29][483-G-H; 484-A-B]

4. This Court fully endorse views of the Delhi High Court in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. RS Misra (2017) 244 DLT 179. When the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing an application/affidavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted. [Para 32][486-E]

5. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RTI Act provides that every public authority to take steps to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. Suo motu disclosure of information on important aspects of working of a public authority is therefore, an essential component of information regime. The judgments and orders passed by the High Courts are all available in the website of the respective High Courts and any person can have access to these judgments and orders. Likewise, the status of the pending cases and the orders passed by the High Courts in exercise of its power under Section 235 of the Constitution of India i.e. control over the subordinate courts like transfers, postings and promotions are also made available in the website. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the documents and other information pertaining to the litigants to the proceedings and to maintain proper balance, Rules of the High Court insist upon the third party to file an application/affidavit to obtain information/certified copies of the documents, lest such application would reach unmanageable proportions apart from the misuse of such information. [Para 33][486-F-H; 487-A-B]

6. Section 31 of the RTI Act repeals only the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. If the intention of the legislature was to repeal any other Acts or laws which deal with the dissemination of information to an applicant, then the RTI Act would have clearly specified so. In the absence of any provision to this effect, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted so as to attribute a meaning to them which was not intended by the legislature. In the RTI Act, there is no specific reference to the rules framed by the various High Courts or any other special law excepting the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. [Para 37][488-E-F]

7. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules requires a third party to the proceedings to file an affidavit and state the reasons for seeking access to the information or grant of certified copies of records and there is no inconsistency of the High Court Rules with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Gujarat High Court Rules neither prohibit nor forbid dissemination of information or grant of certified copies of records. The difference is only insofar as the stipulation of filing an application/affidavit or payment of fees, etc. is concerned, there is no inconsistency between the two provisions and therefore, the RTI Act has no overriding effect over Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules. [Para 38] [488-G-H; 489-A]

8. This Court summarises the conclusion as follows:-

(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. [Para 43][490-F-H; 491-A-B]

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal 2019 (16) SCALE 40; Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain (2019) SCC Online SC 764; Girish

Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information

Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212 : [2012] 8 SCR 1097 – referred to.

The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra (2017) 244 DLT 179 – approved.

State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar (Establishment) v. Karnataka Information Commission and Another (W.P. No.26763 of 2013 dated

09.01.2019) – referred to.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 781 : [2011] 14 SCR 328; R. S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387 – relied on.