Can Third Parties Access Certified Copies from High Courts? Supreme Court Clarifies

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the issue of whether third parties can access certified copies of documents from High Courts under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, or if they must adhere to the specific procedural requirements set forth in the Gujarat High Court Rules. This ruling has significant implications for the interpretation of the RTI Act and the procedural norms established by High Courts across India.

Case Background

The case arose from an RTI application filed by a respondent seeking certified copies of documents related to two civil applications pending before the Gujarat High Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that, as per the Gujarat High Court Rules, he needed to submit an application along with an affidavit stating the reasons for his request, as he was not a party to the proceedings. The applicant's appeal to the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) resulted in an order directing the PIO to provide the requested information, which was subsequently challenged by the High Court of Gujarat.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The High Court ruled that the applicant must follow the established procedures under the Gujarat High Court Rules, which require third parties to submit an affidavit stating the grounds for their request. The High Court emphasized that the RTI Act could not be invoked to bypass these rules, as they were not declared ultra vires. The Division Bench upheld the High Court's position, stating that the rules governing the provision of certified copies must be adhered to, thereby setting aside the CIC's order.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while deliberating on the matter, identified two key points for consideration: whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules was inconsistent with the RTI Act and whether the provisions of the RTI Act could be invoked when an alternative mechanism existed under the High Court Rules. The Court noted that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act allows individuals to request information without providing reasons, while Rule 151 requires third parties to submit an affidavit stating their reasons for seeking certified copies.

The Court concluded that the procedural requirements of the Gujarat High Court Rules did not conflict with the RTI Act. It emphasized that the RTI Act and the High Court Rules could coexist, as long as there was no inherent inconsistency between them. The Court highlighted that the RTI Act was designed to promote transparency and accountability, but it did not intend to undermine the established procedures of the High Courts.

Statutory Interpretation

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms while ensuring access to information. The Court reiterated that the RTI Act, while providing a framework for transparency, does not negate the specific rules established by High Courts under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The Court's analysis emphasized that the RTI Act's overriding effect applies only in cases of direct conflict with other laws, and not when procedural requirements are simply different.

Constitutional or Policy Context

The ruling also reflects the broader constitutional framework within which the RTI Act operates. The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities, but it must be balanced against the need to protect sensitive information and maintain the integrity of judicial processes. The Court's decision reinforces the notion that while access to information is a fundamental right, it must be exercised within the confines of established legal frameworks.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for legal practitioners and individuals seeking information from High Courts. It clarifies that third parties cannot bypass the procedural requirements set forth in High Court Rules by invoking the RTI Act. Legal practitioners must ensure that their clients are aware of the specific requirements for obtaining certified copies, including the necessity of filing an affidavit. This ruling also reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial processes while promoting transparency.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the provisions of the RTI Act do not override the procedural requirements of the Gujarat High Court Rules. The appeals were dismissed, and the Court emphasized the need for third parties to adhere to the established procedures for obtaining certified copies.

Case Details

• Case Title: CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER vs HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
• Citation: 2020 INSC 269
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: R. BANUMATHI, J. & A.S. BOPANNA, J. & HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
• Date of Judgment: 2020-03-04