Case details

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 4 March 2020
Bench: R. Banumathi
Citations: 2020 INSC 269[2020] 5 S.C.R. 465
Type: Judgment (Dismissed)

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 465 (search it on the Supreme Court's e-SCR portal)

Supreme Court of India

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER. on 4 March 2020

Cites 8, Cited by 0

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

[2020] 5 S.C.R. 465

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER.

(Civil Appeal Nos.1966-1967 of 2020)

MARCH 04, 2020

[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNAAND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Right to Information Act, 2005 – s. 19 – Gujarat High CourtRules, 1993 – rr. 149 to 154 – An RTI application was filed byrespondent no. 2 seeking information pertaining to certain casesalong with all relevant documents and certified copies – The PublicInformation Officer, Gujarat High Court informed respondent no.2 that since he is not a party to the said proceedings, as per r. 151of the Gujarat High Court Rules, his application should beaccompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which thecertified copies are required and on making such application, hewill be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules149 to 154 of the Rules, 1993 – The same was upheld by the AppellateAuthority Registrar Administration – In the second appeal byrespondent no. 2, the appellant-Chief Information commissionerdirected Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court toprovide the information sought by respondent no. 2 – Challengingthe said order, respondent no. 1-High Court filed an applicationbefore the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court passedan interim order directing respondent no. 1 to provide informationsought by respondent no. 2 – However, the Division Bench of theHigh Court set aside the order Chief Information Commissioner byobserving that when a particular field is governed by the rules whichare not declared ultra-vires, then there is no question of applyingthe fresh rules and make the situation confusing – Thus, respondentno. 2 has to file an affidavit disclosing the purpose for which thecertified copies are required as per the High Court Rules and thereis no question of making applications under the RTI Act – Onappeal, held: The Gujarat High Court Rules neither prohibit norforbid dissemination of information or grant of certified copies ofrecords – R. 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating athird party to have access to the information/ obtaining the certified A

Acopies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is notinconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely lays downa different procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. forobtaining information – In the absence of inherent inconsistencybetween the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overridingBeffect of RTI Act would not apply – The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through themechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions ofthe RTI Act shall not be resorted to – The decision of the Divisionbench of the High Court confirmed.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993requires a third party applicant seeking copies of documents inany civil or criminal proceedings to file an application/affidavitstating the reasons for which those documents are required. AsDsuch, the High Court Rules do not obstruct a third party fromobtaining copies of documents in any court proceedings or anydocument on the judicial side. It is not as if the information isdenied or refused to the applicant. All that is required to be doneis to apply for the certified copies with application/affidavit statingEthe reasons for seeking the information. The reason insistingupon the third party for stating the grounds for obtaining certifiedcopies is to satisfy the court that the information is sought forbonafide reasons or to effectuate public interest. The informationis held by the High Court asa trustee for the litigants in order toadjudicate upon the matter and administer justice. The sameFcannot be permitted by the third party to have access to suchpersonal information of the parties or information given by theGovernment in the proceedings. Lest, there would be misuse ofprocess of court and the information and it would reachunmanageable levels. If the High Court Rules framed underGArticle 225 provide a mechanism for invoking the said right in aparticular manner, the said mechanism should be preserved andfollowed. The said mechanism cannot be abandoned ordiscontinued merely because the general law – RTI Act has beenenacted. [Para 27][482-H; 483-A-D]

2. The object of the RTI Act itself recognizes the need toprotect the institutional interest and also to make optimum useof limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality ofsensitive information. The procedure to obtain certified copiesunder the High Court Rules is not cumbersome and the procedureis very simple – filing of an application/affidavit along with therequisite court fee stating the reasons for seeking the information.The information held by the High Court on the judicial side arethe “personal information” of the litigants like title cases andfamily court matters, etc. Under the guise of seeking informationunder the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to be abusedand information not to be misused. [Para 28][483-E-F]

3. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227of the Constitution of India, if the records are received by theHigh Court from tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, itmay contain the details disclosed by an assessee in his IncomeTax Return. As held in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CentralInformation Commissionerand Others (2013) 1 SSC 212, the detailsdisclosed by a person in his Income TaxReturn are personalinformation which stands exempted from disclosure unless itinvolves a larger public interest and the larger public interestjustifies the disclosure of such information. While seekinginformation or certified copies of the documents, the High CourtRules which require the third party to a proceeding to file anaffidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, the samecannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of the RTIAct in as much as the rejection if any, made thereafter will be forthe 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 Courtin The Registrar, SupremeCourt of India v. RS Misra (2017) 244DLT 179. When the High Court Rules providefor a mechanismthat the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing anapplication/affidavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to beresorted. [Para 32][486-E]

5. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RTI Act provides thatevery public authority to take steps to provide as much A

Ainformation suo motu to the public at regular intervals throughvarious means of communications including internet, so that thepublic have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtaininformation. Suo motu disclosure of information on importantaspects of working of a public authority is therefore, an essentialcomponent of information regime. The judgments and ordersBpassed by the High Courts are all available in the website of therespective High Courts and any person can have access to thesejudgments and orders. Likewise, the status of the pending casesand the orders passed by the High Courts in exercise of its powerunder Section 235 of the Constitution of India i.e. control overCthe subordinate courts like transfers, postings and promotionsare also made available in the website. In order to maintain theconfidentiality of the documents and other information pertainingto the litigants to the proceedings and to maintain proper balance,Rules of the High Court insist upon the third party to file anapplication/affidavit to obtain information/certified copies of theDdocuments, lest such application would reach unmanageableproportions 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 ofInformation Act, 2002 and not other laws. If the intention of theElegislature was to repeal any other Acts or laws which deal withthe dissemination of information to an applicant, then the RTIAct would have clearly specified so. In the absence of anyprovision to this effect, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot beinterpreted so as to attribute a meaning to them which was notFintended by the legislature. In the RTI Act, there is no specificreference to the rules framed by the various High Courts or anyother special law excepting the Freedom of Information Act, 2002.[Para 37][488-E-F]

7. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules requires aGthird party to the proceedings to file an affidavit and state thereasons for seeking access to the information or grant of certifiedcopies of records and there is no inconsistency of the High CourtRules with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Gujarat High CourtRules neither prohibit nor forbid dissemination of information orgrant of certified copies of records. The difference is only insofarH

as the stipulation of filing an application/affidavit or payment offees, etc. is concerned, there is no inconsistency between thetwo provisions and therefore, the RTI Act has no overriding effectover 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 athird party to have access to the information/obtaining the certifiedcopies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is notinconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely laysdown a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees,etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherentinconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and otherlaw, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.

(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on thejudicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided underthe High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not beresorted to. [Para 43][490-F-H; 491-A-B]

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court ofIndia v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal2019 (16) SCALE40;Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v.Paras Jain(2019) SCC Online SC 764;GirishRamchandra Deshpande v. Central InformationCommissioner & Ors.(2013) 1 SCC 212 : [2012] 8SCR 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 Commissionand Another (W.P. No.26763 of 2013dated09.01.2019) – referred to.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. ShaunakH. Satya & Ors.(2011)8 SCC 781 : [2011] 14 SCR328; R. S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1SCC 335 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387 – relied on.

ACase Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1966-1967 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2014 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 inCSpecial Civil Application No. 7880 of 2013.

A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG (A.C.).

Pritesh Kapoor, Sr. Adv., Salvador S. Rebello, Ms. Suhasini Sen,Ms. A. Raul, Neeleshwar Pavani, Ms. Riya Soni, Ms. Akansha Jain,DMs. Shivikka Agarwal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Kabir Hathi, Ms. ShikhaSandhu, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A.Rajarajan, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva,Ms. Neha Rathi, Jatin Bhardwaj, Rahul Gupta, M/s.Alice Raj, Advs. forthe appearing parties.EThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The point falling for determination in this appeal is as regardsFthe right of a third party to apply for certified copies to be obtained fromthe High Court by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Actwithout resorting to Gujarat High Court Rules prescribed by the HighCourt.

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:- GAn RTI application dated 05.04.2010 was filed by respondent No.2seeking information pertaining to the following cases – Civil ApplicationNo.5517 of 2003 and Civil Application No.8072 of 1989 along with allrelevant documents and certified copies. In reply, by letter dated29.04.2010, Public Information Officer, Gujarat High Court informedrespondent No.2 that for obtaining required copies, he should make anH

application personally or through his advocate on affixing court feesstamp of Rs.3/- with requisite fee to the “Deputy Registrar”. It wasfurther stated that as respondent No.2 is not a party to the saidproceedings, as per Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, hisapplication should be accompanied by an affidavit stating the groundsfor which the certified copies are required and on making such application,he will be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993.

4. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred Appeal No.84 of2010 before the Appellate Authority-Registrar Administration underSection 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”).The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2010 on the groundthat for obtaining certified copies, the alternative efficacious remedy isalready available under the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and thatunder the provisions of RTI Act, no certified copies can be provided.

5. Respondent No.2 then filed Second Appeal No.1437 of 2010-11 before the Appellant-Chief Information Commissioner and notice wassent to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1-High Court filed its responsereiterating the position that there are provisions under Rules 149 to 154of the Gujarat High Court Rules for anybody who wants to obtain thecertified copies as per which, application/affidavit should be filed statingthe grounds for which the documents are required and with requisitecourt fee stamps. Respondent No.1 stated that despite the letter dated02.07.2010 by the Deputy Registrar (CC Section), Decree Department,Gujarat High Court to respondent No.2 informing him of the procedurefor getting certified copies, respondent No.2 has not made application asper the rules of the High Court and that the Public Information Officercannot be compelled to breach the High Court Rules and hence, theappeal filed before the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) is liableto be dismissed. Relying upon Sections 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act, theappellant-Chief Information Commissioner vide its order dated 04.04.2013directed Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court to providethe information sought by respondent No.2 within twenty days.

6. Challenging the order of Chief Information Commissioner,respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Application No.7880 of 2013 beforethe High Court. The learned Single Judge, while admitting the petition,passed an interim order dated 11.10.2013 directing respondent No.1 toprovide the information sought by respondent No.2 within four weeks.

AThe learned Single Judge held that the legality and validity of the directiongiven by the appellant and the right of respondent No.2 to receive thecopies under RTI Act will be considered at the stage of final hearing. Itwas however clarified that supply of information by respondent No.1shall not be construed as acceptance of applicability of RTI Act to theHigh Court.B

7. Being aggrieved by the interim order, respondent No.1-HighCourt preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1348 of 2013 before theDivision Bench contending that the party who seeks certified copies hasto make an application along with the copying charges and requisitecourt fees stamp as per Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High CourtCRules. As per the Rules, if the certified copy is sought by a person whois not a party to the litigation, his application has to be accompanied byan affidavit stating therein the purpose for which he requires the certifiedcopies. Vide impugned order, the High Court allowed the Letters PatentAppeal holding that when a particular field is governed by the rulesDwhich are not declared ultra-vires, then there is no question of applyingthe fresh rules and make the situation confusing. The High Court heldthat in the light of the High Court Rules, certified copies may be given onpayment of charges as per the Rules and also the applicant (respondentNo.2) has to file an affidavit disclosing the purpose for which the certified copies are required and there is no question of making an applicationEunder the RTI Act. The Division Bench set aside the order of the ChiefInformation Commissioner by observing that when a copy is demandedby any person, the same has to be in accordance with the Rules of theHigh Court on the subject.

8. As the question involved is concerned with all the High CourtsFand having regard to the importance of the matter, we have requestedMr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG)to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court which the learned ASGreadily agreed. Mr. Nadkarni collected information from all the HighCourts and filed a compilation of the information obtained by him aboutGthe Rules framed by various High Courts in exercise of their powerunder Article 225 of the Constitution of India and under Section 28 ofthe Right to Information Act, 2005.

9. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned Senior counsel for the appellanthas contended that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act specifically provides thatHan applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give reasons for requesting the information sought and whereas underthe Gujarat High Court Rules, applications made by third parties seekingcopies of the documents shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating thegrounds on which they are required and there is direct inconsistencybetween the provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules,1993. It was submitted that in view of the inconsistency between theprovisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules, harmoniousconstruction between the two is not possible and in the event of conflictbetween the provisions of RTI Act and any other law made by theParliament or State Legislature or any other authority, the former mustprevail. It was submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act specificallyprovides that the provisions of the RTI Act will have an overriding effectover any other laws for the time being in force. The learned Seniorcounsel submitted that the High Court Rules have been framed in exerciseof the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India which wouldbe subject to any other law and the non-obstante clause in Section 22of the RTI Act shows that the provisions of the RTI Act would overridethe High Court Rules. The learned Senior counsel inter alia relied uponthe recent judgment of the Constitution Bench in Central PublicInformation Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash ChandraAgrawal2019 (16) SCALE 40.

10. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for theintervenors submitted that there can be no apprehension that allowingan applicant to seek information from the High Court under RTI Act canprejudicially affect the privacy/rights of other parties or the administrationof justice. Reiterating the submission of Senior counsel, Mr. PreeteshKapoor, Mr. Prashant Bhushan submitted that Rule 151 of the GujaratHigh Court Rules is not in consonance with Section 6(2) of the RTI Actand the provisions of RTI Act prevails over the relevant Rules of PublicAuthorities/Gujarat High Court Rules. Taking us through Section 22 ofthe RTI Act, learned counsel submitted that RTI Act is a general lawmade by the Parliament with the avowed object of dissemination ofinformation and ensuring transparency in the functioning of the PublicAuthorities and in view of non obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTIAct, in case of any conflict regarding “access to information from publicauthorities”, the provisions of RTI Act will prevail over any other law.In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance uponInstitute of Companies Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain 2019 SCCOnline SC 764 and the Constitution Bench judgment in SubhashChandra Agrawal.

A11. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, learned counsel appearing forrespondent No.1-High Court of Gujarat submitted that the Gujarat HighCourt Rules 149 to 154 do not stipulate anything contra to Section 22 ofthe RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rule 151 is in consonance withthe RTI Act. The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 wasonly informed to make an application as per the procedure stipulatedBunder the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and since respondent No.2was not a party to the proceedings, he was informed that his applicationshall be accompanied with an affidavit stating the grounds for which thecertified copies are required. The learned counsel submitted that whenan efficacious remedy is available under Rule 151 of the Gujarat HighCCourt Rules which is in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, theprovisions of the RTI Act cannot be invoked and the High Court rightlyheld that there is no question of making an application under the RTI Actand rightly quashed the order of the appellant-Chief InformationCommissioner.

D12. Mr. Nadkarni, learned amicus has taken us through theinformation received from the various High Courts and submitted that inexercise of power under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, theHigh Court Rules are framed and the Rules provide for a mode forfurnishing of information by way of certified copies to persons who areparty to the litigation after making payment of requisite fees. It wasEsubmitted that insofar as third parties i.e. persons who are not party tothe litigation are concerned, the same is also provided under the Rules, ifthe third party files an affidavit stating the reasonable grounds to receivesuch information/certified copies. The learned amicus submitted thatthere is no inconsistency between the RTI Act and the Rules framed byFthe High Court so as to furnish information. It was also submitted thatalthough Section 22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect over anyother laws, in case there are inconsistencies, Section 22 of the RTI Actdoes not contemplate to override those legislations which also aim toensure access to information. The learned amicus submitted that so faras the information on the judicial side of the High Court, the Rules framedGby the High Court provide for dissemination of information to third partyas per the High Court Rules by filing an application with requisite feeand filing an affidavit stating the grounds. Insofar as the information onthe administrative side of the High Court, the learned amicus submittedthat access to such information could be had through the Rules framedHby the various High Courts and the Rules framed under the RTI Act by the High Courts. Drawing our attention to the judgment of the DelhiHigh Court in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. RS Misra(2017) 244 DLT 179 and judgment of the Karnataka High Court inKarnataka Information Commissioner v. State Public InformationOfficer and another WP(C) No.9418 of 2008, the learned amicussubmitted that the High Courts have taken a consistent view that theinformation can be accessed through the mechanism provided under theSupreme Court Rules, 2013 and the High Court Rules and once anyinformation can be accessed through the mechanism provided under theStatute or the Rules framed, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot beresorted to.

13. We have carefully considered the contentions and perusedthe impugned judgment and materials on record. The following pointsarise for consideration in this appeal:-

(i) Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993stipulating that for providing copy of documents to the thirdparties, they are required to file an affidavit stating the reasonsfor seeking certified copies, suffers from any inconsistencywith the provisions of RTI Act?

(ii) When there are two machineries to provide information/certified copies – one under the High Court Rules and anotherunder the RTI Act, in the absence of any inconsistency in theHigh Court Rules, whether the provisions of RTI Act can beresorted to for obtaining certified copy/information?

14. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 explains themeaning of the term “information” which reads as under:-

………

(f) “information” means any material in any form, includingrecords, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models,data material held in any electronic form and information relating to anyprivate body which can be accessed by a public authority under anyother law for the time being in force; A

A15. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority”. Theterm “public authority” has been given very wide meaning in the RTIAct. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act reads as under:-

………

(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institutionof self-government established or constituted,—

(a) by or under the Constitution;

C(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriateGovernment, and includes any—

D(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed,directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriateGovernment;

16. Section 2(i) of the RTI Act defines “record” which is anEinclusive definition. Section 2(j) explains “right to information”.Sections 2(i) and 2(j) of the RTI Act read as under:-

F………

(i) “record” includes—

(i) any document, manuscript and file;

(ii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of adocument; G

(iii) any reproduction of image or images embodied in suchmicrofilm (whether enlarged or not); and

(iv) any other material produced by a computer or any otherdevice; H

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OFGUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

(j) “right to information” means the right to informationaccessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of anypublic authority and includes the right to—

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents orrecords;

(iii) taking certified samples of material;

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies,tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode orthrough printouts where such information is stored in acomputer or in any other device;

17. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act provides for exemption fromdisclosure of information. Right to information is subject to exceptionsor exemptions stated in Section 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Thereare ten clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Clause (a) of sub-section(1) of Section 8 deals with information that would compromise thesovereignty or integrity of the country and like matter; clause (b) coversany information which has been expressly forbidden to be published byany court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitutecontempt of court; clause (c) covers such matters which would cause abreach of privilege of the Parliament or the State Legislatures; clause(d) protects information of commercial nature and trade secrets andintellectual property; clause (e) exempts the disclosure of any informationavailable to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competentauthority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosureof such information; clause (f) prevents information being disseminated,if it is received in confidence from any foreign Government; clause (g)exempts the disclosure of any information which endanger the life orphysical safety of any person or identify the source of information orassistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;clause (h) bars access to such information which would impede theprocess of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;clause (i) forbids records and papers relating to deliberations of ministersand officers of the executive being made available, subject to a proviso;and, clause (j) prohibits disclosure of personal information unless thereis an element of public interest involved.

BCDEFG

A18. In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court ofIndia v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal2019 (16) SCALE 40, theSupreme Court upheld the order passed by the Central InformationCommissioner directing the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to furnishinformation as to the assets declared by the Hon’ble Judges of theSupreme Court. The Constitution Bench held that such disclosure wouldBnot, in any way, impinge upon the personal information and right to privacyof the Judges. The fiduciary relationship rule in terms of Section 8(1)(e)of the RTI Act was held inapplicable. Learned counsel appearing for theparties extensively relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court inSubhash Chandra Agarwal. Since the issue before us is the High CourtCRules vis-a-vis., the RTI Act, we do not propose to refer the variousobservations copiously relied upon by the learned counsel appearing forthe parties.

19. Article 124 relates to the establishment and constitution of theSupreme Court. Article 124 states that the Supreme Court of IndiaDconsist of Chief Justice of India and other Judges. Under Article 145 ofthe Constitution, the Supreme Court may, from time to time, with theapproval of the President, make Rules for regulating generally thePractice and Procedure of the Court. In exercise of the powers underArticle 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has framed “Supreme

Court Rules”. Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules lays down theEprocedure in respect of grant of certified copies of pleadings, judgments,documents, decrees or orders, deposition of the witnesses, etc. to theparties to the litigation and also to the third parties. The parties to aproceeding in the Supreme Court shall be entitled to obtain certifiedcopies by making appropriate application and the court fees payable asFper the “Supreme Court Rules”. So far as the third parties are concerned,as per Order XIII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, the court on theapplication 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 toreceive such copies as is or are mentioned in the Order XIII Rule 1 ofthe Supreme Court Rules. Thus, as per the Supreme Court Rules also,Gthe third party is required to show good cause for obtaining certifiedcopies of the documents or orders.

20. Article 216 relates to the constitution of High Courts. EveryHigh Court consists of a Chief Justice and other Judges as the Presidentof India may from time to time appoint. The High Court Rules are framedH

under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The procedure followedfor furnishing of copies/certified copies of orders/documents etc., beinginformation on the judicial side, are governed by the Rules framed by theHigh Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as theRTI Act is concerned, in exercise of the powers under Section 28 of theRTI Act, various High Courts have framed the Rules under RTI Act andthe information on the administrative side of the High Court can beaccessed as per the Rules framed by the High Courts under RTI Act.

21. In the present case, we are concerned with Gujarat HighCourt Rules. Grant of certified copies to parties to the litigation and thirdparties are governed by Rules 149 to 154 of Gujarat High Court Rules.As per the Rules, on filing of application with prescribed court feesstamp, litigants/parties to the proceedings are entitled to receive the copiesof documents/orders/judgments etc. The third parties who are not partiesin any of the proceedings, shall not be given the copies of judgments andother documents without the order of the Assistant Registrar. As perRule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, the applications requestingfor copies of documents/judgments made by third parties, shall beaccompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which they arerequired. Rule 151 reads as under:- “151. Parties to proceedings entitled to copies; application by thirdparties to be accompanied by affidavits. Copies of documents inany Civil or Criminal Proceedings and copies of judgment of theHigh Court shall not be given to persons other than the partiesthereto without the order of the Assistant Registrar. Applicationsfor copies of documents or judgment made by third parties shallbe accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds on which theyare required, provided that such affidavit shall be dispensed within case of applications made by or on behalf of the Governmentof the Union, the Government of any State or the Government ofany foreign State.”

22. The learned amicus has obtained information from variousHigh Courts as to the procedure followed by the High Courts forfurnishing certified copies of orders/judgments/documents. As per theRules framed by various High Courts, parties to the proceedings areentitled to obtain certified copies of orders/judgments/documents on filingof application along with prescribed court fees stamp. Insofar asfurnishing of certified copies to third parties, the Rules framed by the A

AHigh Courts stipulate that the certified copies of documents/orders orjudgments or copies of proceedings would be furnished to the third partiesonly on the orders passed by the court or the Registrar, on being satisfiedabout the reasonable cause and bona fide of the reasons seeking theinformation/certified copies of the documents. We may refer to theRules framed by the High Courts of Bombay, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh,BKarnataka, Madras and various other High Courts which stipulate similarprovisions for furnishing information/certified copies to third parties. TheRules stipulate that for the third parties to have access to the informationon the judicial side or obtaining certified copies of documents/judgments/orders, the third parties will have to make an application stating the reasonsCfor which they are required and on payment of necessary court feesstamp. As pointed out earlier, Supreme Court Rules also stipulate thatcertified copies of documents or orders could be supplied to the thirdparties only on being satisfied about the reasonable cause. Be it noted,the access to the information or certified copies of the documents/judgments/orders/court proceedings are not denied to the third parties.DThe Rules of the High Court only stipulate that the third parties will haveto file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for which theinformation/certified copies are required. The Rules framed by theGujarat High Court are in consonance with the provisions of the RTIAct. There is no inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI ActEwith the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the powersunder Article 225 of the Constitution of India.23. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned Senior counsel for the appellanthas submitted that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act grants a substantive rightand the person who is seeking information/copies is not required to giveFany reason and this right cannot be curtailed or whittled down byprocedural laws framed by the High Court under Article 225 of theConstitution of India. In support of his contention that the rules framedby the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 225 cannot makeor curtail any substantive law, reliance was placed upon Raj KumarYadav v. Samir Kumar Mahaseth and Others (2005) 3 SCC 601.GLearned Senior counsel further submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Actspecifically provides that the provisions of the RTI Act will have anoverriding effect over other laws for the time being in force. It wastherefore, submitted that in the event of any conflict between theprovisions of the RTI Act and any other laws made by the Parliament orHa State Legislature or any other authority, the provisions of the RTI Act must prevail and therefore, the RTI Act would prevail over the rulesframed by the High Court. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel forthe intervention applicants also reiterated the same submission.

24. In order to consider the contentions urged by the learned Seniorcounsel for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, let us briefly referto the various categories of information held by the High Court, whichare broadly as under:- B

(a) information held by the High Court relating to the parties tothe litigation/proceedings – pleadings, documents and othermaterials and memo of grounds raised by the parties; C

(b) orders and judgments passed by the High Court, notes ofproceedings, etc.;

(c) In exercise of power of superintendence over the other courtsand tribunals, information received in the records submitted/called for by those courts and tribunals like subordinatejudiciary, various tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,DCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and othertribunals; (d) information on the administrative side of the High Court viz.appointments, transfers and postings of the judicial officers,staff members of the High Court and the district judiciary,Edisciplinary action taken against the judicial officers and thestaff members and such other information relating to theadministrative work.

(e) Correspondence by the High Court with the Supreme Court,Government and with the district judiciary, etc.; F

and

(f) information on the administrative side as to the decision takenby the collegium of the High Court in making recommendationsof the Judges to be appointed to the High Court; informationas to the assets of the sitting Judges held by the Chief Justiceof the High Court.

25. Information under the categories (a), (b) and (c) and otherinformation on the judicial side can be accessed/certified copies ofdocuments and orders could be obtained by the parties to the proceedings H

Ain terms of the High Court Rules and the parties to the proceedings areentitled to the same. So far as the third parties are concerned, as ofright, they are not entitled to access the information/obtain the certifiedcopies of documents, orders and other proceedings. As per rules framedby the High Court, a third party can obtain the certified copies of thedocuments, orders or judgments or can have access to the informationBonly by filing an application/affidavit and by stating the reason for whichthe information/copies of documents or orders are required. Insofar ason the administrative side i.e. categories (d), (e) and (f), one can haveaccess to the information or copies of the documents could be obtainedunder the rules framed by the various High Courts or under the rulesCframed by the High Court under the RTI Act. Insofar as the disclosureof information as to the assets of the Judges held by the Chief Justice ofthe High Court, the same is now covered by the judgment of theConstitution Bench reported in Central Public Information Officer,Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal2019 (16)SCALE 40.D

26. The preamble to the RTI Act suggests that the Act was enacted“to promote transparency and accountability in the working of everypublic authority…….”. The Act was enacted by keeping in view theright of “an informed citizenry and transparency of informationwhich are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruptionEand to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountableto the governed…..”. The preamble opens with a reference to theConstitution having established a democratic republic and the needtherefore, for an informed citizenry. The preamble reveals that legislaturewas conscious of the likely conflict with other public interest includingFefficient operations of the Governments and optimum use of limited fiscalresources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive informationand the necessity to harmonise these conflicting interests. A citizen ofIndia has every right to ask for any information subject to the limitationprescribed under the Act. The right to seek information is only to fulfillthe objectives of the Act laid down in the preamble, that is, to promoteGtransparency of information.

27. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 requires athird party applicant seeking copies of documents in any civil or criminalproceedings to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for whichthose documents are required. As such, the High Court Rules do notH

obstruct a third party from obtaining copies of documents in any courtproceedings or any document on the judicial side. It is not as if theinformation is denied or refused to the applicant. All that is required tobe done is to apply for the certified copies with application/affidavit statingthe reasons for seeking the information. The reason insisting upon thethird party for stating the grounds for obtaining certified copies is tosatisfy the court that the information is sought for bona fide reasons orto effectuate public interest. The information is held by the High Courtas a trustee for the litigants in order to adjudicate upon the matter andadminister justice. The same cannot be permitted by the third party tohave access to such personal information of the parties or informationgiven by the Government in the proceedings. Lest, there would be misuseof process of court and the information and it would reach unmanageablelevels. If the High Court Rules framed under Article 225 provide amechanism for invoking the said right in a particular manner, the saidmechanism should be preserved and followed. The said mechanismcannot be abandoned or discontinued merely because the general law –RTI Act has been enacted.

28. As discussed earlier, the object of the RTI Act itself recognizesthe need to protect the institutional interest and also to make optimumuse of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality ofsensitive information. The procedure to obtain certified copies under theHigh Court Rules is not cumbersome and the procedure is very simple –filing of an application/affidavit along with the requisite court fee statingthe reasons for seeking the information. The information held by theHigh Court on the judicial side are the “personal information” of thelitigants like title cases and family court matters, etc. Under the guise ofseeking information under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not tobe abused and information not to be misused.

29. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of theConstitution of India, if the records are received by the High Court fromtribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it may contain the detailsdisclosed by an assessee in his Income Tax Return. As held in GirishRamchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner andOthers (2013) 1 SSC 212, the details disclosed by a person in his IncomeTax Return are personal information which stands exempted fromdisclosure unless it involves a larger public interest and the larger publicinterest justifies the disclosure of such information. While seeking A

Ainformation or certified copies of the documents, the High Court Ruleswhich require the third party to a proceeding to file an affidavit statingthe reasons for seeking the information, the same cannot be said to beinconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act in as much as the rejectionif any, made thereafter will be for the very reasons as stipulated in Section8 of the RTI Act.B

30. Considering the implementation of RTI Act and observing thatthe existing mechanism for invoking the said right should be preservedand operated, in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v.Shaunak H. Satya and Others (2011) 8 SCC 781, the Supreme Courtheld as under:- C

“24. One of the objects of democracy is to bring abouttransparency of information to contain corruption and bring aboutaccountability. But achieving this object does not mean that otherequally important public interests including efficient functioningof the governments and public authorities, optimum use of limitedfiscal resources, preservation of confidentiality of sensitiveinformation, etc. are to be ignored or sacrificed. The object of theRTI Act is to harmonise the conflicting public interests, that is,ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and containingcorruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that therevelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm oradversely affect other public interests which include efficientfunctioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscalresources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitiveinformation, on the other hand. While Sections 3 and 4 seek toachieve the first objective, Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achievethe second objective.

25. Therefore, when Section 8 exempts certain information frombeing disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on theright to information, but as an equally important provision protectingother public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservationof democratic ideals. Therefore, in dealing with information notfalling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent authoritiesunder the RTI Act will not read the exemptions in Section 8 in arestrictive manner but in a practical manner so that the other publicinterests are preserved and the RTI Act attains a fine balancebetween its goal of attaining transparency of information andsafeguarding the other public interests.”

31. While examining the issue of where two mechanisms existfor obtaining the information i.e. the Supreme Court Rules and the RTIAct, in The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra (2017)244 DLT 179, the Delhi High Court held that “once any informationcan be accessed through the mechanism provided under anotherstatute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to.”In (2017) 244 DLT 179,the Delhi High Court held as under:- “53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enactedonly to make accessible to the citizens the information with thepublic authorities which W.P.(C) 3530/2011 Page 22 of 36 hithertowas not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor doesany other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Actto provide additional mode for accessing information with the publicauthorities which has already formulated rules and schemes formaking the said information available. Certainly if the said rules,regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing informationwhich has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort canbe had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or tomultiply the modes of accessing information.

54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information canbe accessed through the mechanism provided under anotherstatute, then the provisions of the RTIAct cannot be resorted toas there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions ofRTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, theprovisions of RTIAct are not to be resorted to if the same are notactuated to achieve transparency.

55. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act reveals that the said Act isconcerned only with that information, which is under the exclusivecontrol of the ‘public authority’. Providing copies/certified copiesis not separate from providing information. The SCR not onlydeal with providing ‘certified copies’ of judicial records but alsodeal with providing ‘not a certified copy’ or simply a ‘copy’ of thedocument. The certification of the records is done by the AssistantRegistrar/Branch Officer or any officer on behalf of the Registrar.In the opinion of this Court, in case of a statute which contemplatesdissemination of information as provided for by the Explanation toSection 4 of the RTI Act then in such situation, public will haveminimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain suchinformation.

A56. There are other provisions of the RTIAct which support thesaid position, namely, Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) which contemplatethat if an information is disseminated then the public will haveminimum resort to the use of the RTIAct to obtain information. Inthe present case, the dissemination of information under theprovisions of the SCR squarely fits into the definition ofB“disseminated” as provided in the aforesaid Explanation to Section7(9) and the Preamble contemplate a bar for providing informationif it „disproportionally diverts the resources of the public authority”.

57. Section 4(2) also provides that it shall be constant endeavourof every public authority to take steps in accordance with theCrequirements of subSection (1) thereof and to provide as muchinformation suo-motu to the public at regular intervals throughvarious means of communications including intervals so that thepublic has minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtaininformation.” [Underlining added]D

The same view was taken up by the Karnataka High Court inState Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar(Establishment) v. Karnataka Information Commission and AnotherWP No.26763 of 2013 dated 09.01.2019.

32. We fully endorse above views of the Delhi High Court. WhenEthe High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing an application/affidavit, theprovisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted.

33. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RTI Act provides thatevery public authority to take steps to provide as much information suoFmotu to the public at regular intervals through various means ofcommunications including internet, so that the public have minimum resortto the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. Suo motu disclosure ofinformation on important aspects of working of a public authority istherefore, an essential component of information regime. The judgmentsGand orders passed by the High Courts are all available in the website ofthe respective High Courts and any person can have access to thesejudgments and orders. Likewise, the status of the pending cases and theorders passed by the High Courts in exercise of its power under Section235 of the Constitution of India i.e. control over the subordinate courtslike transfers, postings and promotions are also made available in theH

website. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the documents andother information pertaining to the litigants to the proceedings and tomaintain proper balance, Rules of the High Court insist upon the thirdparty to file an application/affidavit to obtain information/certified copiesof the documents, lest such application would reach unmanageableproportions apart from the misuse of such information.

34. Section 22 of the RTI Act lays down that the provisions of theRTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewithcontained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for thetime being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of anylaw other than RTI Act. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant hassubmitted that since the requirement under Rule 151 of the Gujarat HighCourt Rules of filing an affidavit stating the grounds for seeking theinformation is directly contrary to Section 6(2) of the RTI Act and thereis direct inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and theGujarat High Court Rules and in the event of conflict between theprovisions of the RTI Act and any other law made by the Parliament ora State Legislature or any other authority, the RTI Act must prevail.

35. In the non obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTI Act,three categories have been mentioned:- (i) the Official Secrets Act, 1923;and (ii) any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) any instrumenthaving effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. In case ofinconsistency of any law with the provisions of the Right to InformationAct, overriding effect has been given to the provisions of the Right toInformation Act. Section 31 of the RTI Act which is a repealing clauserepeals only the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws.The Right to Information Act has not repealed the Official Secrets Actor any of the laws providing confidentiality which prohibits the authoritiesto disclose information. Therefore, all those enactments including OfficialSecrets Act, 1923 continue to be in force. This Act however, has anoverriding effect to the extent they are inconsistent.

36. The non-obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean animplied repeal of the High Court Rules and Orders framed under Article225 of the Constitution of India; but only has an overriding effect in caseof inconsistency. A special enactment or rule cannot be held to beoverridden by a later general enactment simply because the latter opensup with a non-obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistencybetween the two legislations. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the A

Ajudgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka(1992) 1 SCC 335 wherein, the Supreme Court held as under:- “38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC127, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as His Lordship then was) observedthus :B

“As mentioned hereinbefore if the scheme was held to be valid,then the question what is the general law and what is the speciallaw and which law in case of conflict would prevail would havearisen and that would have necessitated the application of theprinciple “generalia specialibus non derogant”. The generalCrule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes isthat the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a priorspecial law would yield to a later general law, if either of the twofollowing conditions is satisfied:

(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.

D(ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlierenactment.

If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, eventhough general, would prevail.”

37. As pointed out earlier, Section 31 of the RTI Act repeals onlyEthe Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. If the intentionof the legislature was to repeal any other Acts or laws which deal withthe dissemination of information to an applicant, then the RTI Act wouldhave 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 aFmeaning to them which was not intended by the legislature. In the RTIAct, there is no specific reference to the rules framed by the variousHigh Courts or any other special law excepting the Freedom ofInformation Act, 2002.

38. As discussed earlier, Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court RulesGrequires a third party to the proceedings to file an affidavit and state thereasons for seeking access to the information or grant of certified copiesof records and there is no inconsistency of the High Court Rules withthe provisions of the RTI Act. The Gujarat High Court Rules neitherprohibit nor forbid dissemination of information or grant of certified copiesof records. The difference is only insofar as the stipulation of filing anH

application/affidavit or payment of fees, etc. is concerned, there is noinconsistency between the two provisions and therefore, the RTI Acthas no overriding effect over Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules.

39. Ten categories of information are exempted from disclosureunder Section 8(1)(a) to (j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) excludesdisclosure of personal information, the disclosure of which:- (i) has norelationship to any public activity or interest; or (ii) would causeunwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, in boththe cases, the Central Public Information Officer or the appellate authoritymay order disclosure of such information, if they are satisfied that largerpublic interest justifies disclosure. This would imply that personalinformation which has some relationship to any public activity or interestmay be liable to be disclosed. An invasion of privacy may be held to bejustified if the larger public interest so warrants.

40. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side arethe personal information of the parties to the litigation or informationfurnished by the Government in relation to a particular case. There maybe information held by the High Court relating to the cases which havebeen obtained from the various tribunals in exercise of the supervisoryjurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia. For instance, the matters arising out of the orders by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal and other tribunals over which the High Court exercises thesupervisory jurisdiction. The orders/judgments passed by the High Courtthough are the documents which are concerned to the rights and liabilitiesof the parties to the litigation. Under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, theCentral Public Information Officer or the appellate authority may orderdisclosure of personal information if they are satisfied that the largerpublic interest justifies disclosure. Insofar as the High Court Rules areconcerned, if the information or certified copies of the documents/recordof proceedings/orders on the judicial side of the Court is required, all thatthe third party is required to do is to file an application/affidavit statingthe reasons for seeking such information. On being satisfied about thereasons for requirement of the certified copy/disclosure of information,the Court or the concerned Officer would order for grant of certifiedcopies. As discussed earlier, Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme CourtRules also stipulate the same procedure insofar as the third party seekingcertified copy of the documents/records.

A41. Yet another contention advanced is that the information heldby the High Court may be furnished to the applicant by following theprocedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Section 11 of the Act dealswith third party information. As per Section 11 of the Act, if therequisite information or record or part thereof has been supplied by athird party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, thenBthe Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,as the case may be, within five days of receipt of the request give awritten notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that theCentral Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record or partCthereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing ororally regarding whether such information should be disclosed and suchsubmission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decisionabout the disclosure of the information.

42. We do not find any merit in the above submission and thatDsuch cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing theinformation/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effectivemachinery for having access to the information or obtaining certifiedcopies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of anapplication/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons forwhich the certified copies are required, we do not find any justificationEfor invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersomeprocedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resourceswhich the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid.

43. We summarise our conclusion:-

F(i)Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a thirdparty to have access to the information/obtaining the certifiedcopies of the documents or orders requires to file anapplication/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking theinformation, is not inconsistent with the provisions of theRTI Act; but merely lays down a different procedure asGthe practice or payment of fees, etc. for obtaininginformation. In the absence of inherent inconsistencybetween the provisions of the RTI Act and other law,overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF491GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.](ii)The information to be accessed/certified copies on theAjudicial side to be obtained through the mechanism providedunder the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Actshall not be resorted to.

44. In the light of aforesaid reasonings, the impugned order dated13.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LettersPatent Appeal No.1348 of 2013 is confirmed and these appeals aredismissed. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered byMr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni as amicus.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals dismissed.