# CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2020] 5 S.C.R. 465
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-03-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.1966-1967 of 2020
- **Bench:** R. Banumathi, A. S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chief-information-commissioner-v-high-court-of-gujarat-and-another-34490
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Right to Information Act, 2005 - s. 19 - Gujarat High Court
Rules, 1993 - rr. 149 to 154 - An RTI application was filed by
respondent no. 2 seeking information pertaining to certain cases
along with all relevant documents and certified copies - The Public
Information Officer, Gujarat High Court informed respondent no.
2 that since he is not a party to the said proceedings, as per r. 151
of the Gujarat High Court Rules, his application should be
accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which the
certified copies are required and on making such application, he
will be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules
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
465
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 465
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
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
un

## Text

_Characters 0–39,937 of 63,632. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39937 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
465
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
v.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER.
(Civil Appeal Nos.1966-1967 of 2020)
MARCH 04, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA
AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Right to Information Act, 2005 - s. 19 - Gujarat High Court
Rules, 1993 - rr. 149 to 154 - An RTI application was filed by
respondent no. 2 seeking information pertaining to certain cases
along with all relevant documents and certified copies - The Public
Information Officer, Gujarat High Court informed respondent no.
2 that since he is not a party to the said proceedings, as per r. 151
of the Gujarat High Court Rules, his application should be
accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which the
certified copies are required and on making such application, he
will be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules
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
465
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 465
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
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]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
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
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
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.
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
2019 (16) SCALE 40
referred to
Para 9
[2012] 8 SCR 1097
referred to
Para 29
[2011] 14 SCR 328
relied on
Para 30
[1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387
relied on
Para 36
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 19661967 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2014 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 in
Special 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,
Ms. Shivikka Agarwal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Kabir Hathi, Ms. Shikha
Sandhu, 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. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The point falling for determination in this appeal is as regards
the right of a third party to apply for certified copies to be obtained from
the High Court by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act
without resorting to Gujarat High Court Rules prescribed by the High
Court.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-
An RTI application dated 05.04.2010 was filed by respondent No.2
seeking information pertaining to the following cases - Civil Application
No.5517 of 2003 and Civil Application No.8072 of 1989 along with all
relevant documents and certified copies. In reply, by letter dated
29.04.2010, Public Information Officer, Gujarat High Court informed
respondent No.2 that for obtaining required copies, he should make an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
application personally or through his advocate on affixing court fees
stamp of Rs.3/- with requisite fee to the "Deputy Registrar". It was
further stated that as respondent No.2 is not a party to the said
proceedings, as per Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, his
application should be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds
for which the certified copies are required and on making such application,
he will be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules
149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993.
4. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred Appeal No.84 of
2010 before the Appellate Authority-Registrar Administration under
Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "RTI Act").
The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2010 on the ground
that for obtaining certified copies, the alternative efficacious remedy is
already available under the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and that
under the provisions of RTI Act, no certified copies can be provided.
5. Respondent No.2 then filed Second Appeal No.1437 of 201011 before the Appellant-Chief Information Commissioner and notice was
sent to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1-High Court filed its response
reiterating the position that there are provisions under Rules 149 to 154
of the Gujarat High Court Rules for anybody who wants to obtain the
certified copies as per which, application/affidavit should be filed stating
the grounds for which the documents are required and with requisite
court fee stamps. Respondent No.1 stated that despite the letter dated
02.07.2010 by the Deputy Registrar (CC Section), Decree Department,
Gujarat High Court to respondent No.2 informing him of the procedure
for getting certified copies, respondent No.2 has not made application as
per the rules of the High Court and that the Public Information Officer
cannot be compelled to breach the High Court Rules and hence, the
appeal filed before the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) is liable
to be dismissed. Relying upon Sections 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act, the
appellant-Chief Information Commissioner vide its order dated 04.04.2013
directed Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court to provide
the 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 before
the High Court. The learned Single Judge, while admitting the petition,
passed an interim order dated 11.10.2013 directing respondent No.1 to
provide the information sought by respondent No.2 within four weeks.
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
The learned Single Judge held that the legality and validity of the direction
given by the appellant and the right of respondent No.2 to receive the
copies under RTI Act will be considered at the stage of final hearing. It
was however clarified that supply of information by respondent No.1
shall not be construed as acceptance of applicability of RTI Act to the
High Court.
7. Being aggrieved by the interim order, respondent No.1-High
Court preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1348 of 2013 before the
Division Bench contending that the party who seeks certified copies has
to make an application along with the copying charges and requisite
court fees stamp as per Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court
Rules. As per the Rules, if the certified copy is sought by a person who
is not a party to the litigation, his application has to be accompanied by
an affidavit stating therein the purpose for which he requires the certified
copies. Vide impugned order, the High Court allowed the Letters Patent
Appeal holding 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. The High Court held
that in the light of the High Court Rules, certified copies may be given on
payment of charges as per the Rules and also the applicant (respondent
No.2) has to file an affidavit disclosing the purpose for which the certified
copies are required and there is no question of making an application
under the RTI Act. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Chief
Information Commissioner by observing that when a copy is demanded
by any person, the same has to be in accordance with the Rules of the
High Court on the subject.
8. As the question involved is concerned with all the High Courts
and having regard to the importance of the matter, we have requested
Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG)
to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court which the learned ASG
readily agreed. Mr. Nadkarni collected information from all the High
Courts and filed a compilation of the information obtained by him about
the Rules framed by various High Courts in exercise of their power
under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and under Section 28 of
the Right to Information Act, 2005.
9. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned Senior counsel for the appellant
has contended that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act specifically provides that
an applicant making a request for information shall not be required to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
473
give reasons for requesting the information sought and whereas under
the Gujarat High Court Rules, applications made by third parties seeking
copies of the documents shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the
grounds on which they are required and there is direct inconsistency
between the provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules,
1993. It was submitted that in view of the inconsistency between the
provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules, harmonious
construction between the two is not possible and in the event of conflict
between the provisions of RTI Act and any other law made by the
Parliament or State Legislature or any other authority, the former must
prevail. It was submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act specifically
provides that the provisions of the RTI Act will have an overriding effect
over any other laws for the time being in force. The learned Senior
counsel submitted that the High Court Rules have been framed in exercise
of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India which would
be subject to any other law and the non-obstante clause in Section 22
of the RTI Act shows that the provisions of the RTI Act would override
the High Court Rules. The learned Senior counsel inter alia relied upon
the recent judgment of the Constitution Bench in Central Public
Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra
Agrawal2019 (16) SCALE 40.
10. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the
intervenors submitted that there can be no apprehension that allowing
an applicant to seek information from the High Court under RTI Act can
prejudicially affect the privacy/rights of other parties or the administration
of justice. Reiterating the submission of Senior counsel, Mr. Preetesh
Kapoor, Mr. Prashant Bhushan submitted that Rule 151 of the Gujarat
High Court Rules is not in consonance with Section 6(2) of the RTI Act
and the provisions of RTI Act prevails over the relevant Rules of Public
Authorities/Gujarat High Court Rules. Taking us through Section 22 of
the RTI Act, learned counsel submitted that RTI Act is a general law
made by the Parliament with the avowed object of dissemination of
information and ensuring transparency in the functioning of the Public
Authorities and in view of non obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTI
Act, in case of any conflict regarding "access to information from public
authorities", the provisions of RTI Act will prevail over any other law.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon
Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain 2019 SCC
Online SC 764 and the Constitution Bench judgment in Subhash
Chandra Agrawal.
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
11. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1-High Court of Gujarat submitted that the Gujarat High
Court Rules 149 to 154 do not stipulate anything contra to Section 22 of
the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rule 151 is in consonance with
the RTI Act. The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 was
only informed to make an application as per the procedure stipulated
under the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and since respondent No.2
was not a party to the proceedings, he was informed that his application
shall be accompanied with an affidavit stating the grounds for which the
certified copies are required. The learned counsel submitted that when
an efficacious remedy is available under Rule 151 of the Gujarat High
Court Rules which is in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, the
provisions of the RTI Act cannot be invoked and the High Court rightly
held that there is no question of making an application under the RTI Act
and rightly quashed the order of the appellant-Chief Information
Commissioner.
12. Mr. Nadkarni, learned amicus has taken us through the
information received from the various High Courts and submitted that in
exercise of power under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court Rules are framed and the Rules provide for a mode for
furnishing of information by way of certified copies to persons who are
party to the litigation after making payment of requisite fees. It was
submitted that insofar as third parties i.e. persons who are not party to
the litigation are concerned, the same is also provided under the Rules, if
the third party files an affidavit stating the reasonable grounds to receive
such information/certified copies. The learned amicus submitted that
there is no inconsistency between the RTI Act and the Rules framed by
the High Court so as to furnish information. It was also submitted that
although Section 22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect over any
other laws, in case there are inconsistencies, Section 22 of the RTI Act
does not contemplate to override those legislations which also aim to
ensure access to information. The learned amicus submitted that so far
as the information on the judicial side of the High Court, the Rules framed
by the High Court provide for dissemination of information to third party
as per the High Court Rules by filing an application with requisite fee
and filing an affidavit stating the grounds. Insofar as the information on
the administrative side of the High Court, the learned amicus submitted
that access to such information could be had through the Rules framed
by the various High Courts and the Rules framed under the RTI Act by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
475
the High Courts. Drawing our attention to the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. RS Misra
(2017) 244 DLT 179 and judgment of the Karnataka High Court in
Karnataka Information Commissioner v. State Public Information
Officer and another WP(C) No.9418 of 2008, the learned amicus
submitted that the High Courts have taken a consistent view that the
information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the High Court Rules and once any
information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under the
Statute or the Rules framed, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be
resorted to.
13. We have carefully considered the contentions and perused
the impugned judgment and materials on record. The following points
arise for consideration in this appeal:-
(i)
Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993
stipulating that for providing copy of documents to the third
parties, they are required to file an affidavit stating the reasons
for seeking certified copies, suffers from any inconsistency
with the provisions of RTI Act?
(ii)
When there are two machineries to provide information/
certified copies - one under the High Court Rules and another
under the RTI Act, in the absence of any inconsistency in the
High Court Rules, whether the provisions of RTI Act can be
resorted to for obtaining certified copy/information?
14. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 explains the
meaning of the term "information" which reads as under:-
2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless, the context otherwise
requires,-
.........
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including
records, 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 any
private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any
other law for the time being in force;
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
15. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines "public authority". The
term "public authority" has been given very wide meaning in the RTI
Act. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act reads as under:-
2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless, the context otherwise
requires,-
.........
(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution
of self-government established or constituted,-
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(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 appropriate
Government, and includes any-
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
Government;
16. Section 2(i) of the RTI Act defines "record" which is an
inclusive definition. Section 2(j) explains "right to information".
Sections 2(i) and 2(j) of the RTI Act read as under:-
2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless, the context otherwise
requires,-
.........
(i) "record" includes-
(i)
any document, manuscript and file;
(ii)
any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a
document;
(iii) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such
microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
(iv) any other material produced by a computer or any other
device;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
477
(j) "right to information" means the right to information
accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any
public authority and includes the right to-
(i)
inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii)
taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or
records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies,
tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or
through printouts where such information is stored in a
computer or in any other device;
17. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act provides for exemption from
disclosure of information. Right to information is subject to exceptions
or exemptions stated in Section 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. There
are 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 the
sovereignty or integrity of the country and like matter; clause (b) covers
any information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by
any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute
contempt of court; clause (c) covers such matters which would cause a
breach of privilege of the Parliament or the State Legislatures; clause
(d) protects information of commercial nature and trade secrets and
intellectual property; clause (e) exempts the disclosure of any information
available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure
of 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 or
physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or
assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
clause (h) bars access to such information which would impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
clause (i) forbids records and papers relating to deliberations of ministers
and officers of the executive being made available, subject to a proviso;
and, clause (j) prohibits disclosure of personal information unless there
is an element of public interest involved.
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
18. In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of
India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal2019 (16) SCALE 40, the
Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the Central Information
Commissioner directing the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to furnish
information as to the assets declared by the Hon'ble Judges of the
Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench held that such disclosure would
not, in any way, impinge upon the personal information and right to privacy
of the Judges. The fiduciary relationship rule in terms of Section 8(1)(e)
of the RTI Act was held inapplicable. Learned counsel appearing for the
parties extensively relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in
Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Since the issue before us is the High Court
Rules vis-a-vis., the RTI Act, we do not propose to refer the various
observations copiously relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
19. Article 124 relates to the establishment and constitution of the
Supreme Court. Article 124 states that the Supreme Court of India
consist of Chief Justice of India and other Judges. Under Article 145 of
the Constitution, the Supreme Court may, from time to time, with the
approval of the President, make Rules for regulating generally the
Practice and Procedure of the Court. In exercise of the powers under
Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has framed "Supreme
Court Rules". Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules lays down the
procedure in respect of grant of certified copies of pleadings, judgments,
documents, decrees or orders, deposition of the witnesses, etc. to the
parties to the litigation and also to the third parties. The parties to a
proceeding in the Supreme Court shall be entitled to obtain certified
copies by making appropriate application and the court fees payable as
per 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 the
application 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 to
receive such copies as is or are mentioned in the Order XIII Rule 1 of
the Supreme Court Rules. Thus, as per the Supreme Court Rules also,
the third party is required to show good cause for obtaining certified
copies of the documents or orders.
20. Article 216 relates to the constitution of High Courts. Every
High Court consists of a Chief Justice and other Judges as the President
of India may from time to time appoint. The High Court Rules are framed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The procedure followed
for furnishing of copies/certified copies of orders/documents etc., being
information on the judicial side, are governed by the Rules framed by the
High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the
RTI Act is concerned, in exercise of the powers under Section 28 of the
RTI Act, various High Courts have framed the Rules under RTI Act and
the information on the administrative side of the High Court can be
accessed as per the Rules framed by the High Courts under RTI Act.
21. In the present case, we are concerned with Gujarat High
Court Rules. Grant of certified copies to parties to the litigation and third
parties are governed by Rules 149 to 154 of Gujarat High Court Rules.
As per the Rules, on filing of application with prescribed court fees
stamp, litigants/parties to the proceedings are entitled to receive the copies
of documents/orders/judgments etc. The third parties who are not parties
in any of the proceedings, shall not be given the copies of judgments and
other documents without the order of the Assistant Registrar. As per
Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, the applications requesting
for copies of documents/judgments made by third parties, shall be
accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which they are
required. Rule 151 reads as under:-
"151. Parties to proceedings entitled to copies; application by third
parties to be accompanied by affidavits. Copies of documents in
any Civil or Criminal Proceedings and copies of judgment of the
High Court shall not be given to persons other than the parties
thereto without the order of the Assistant Registrar. Applications
for copies of documents or judgment made by third parties shall
be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds on which they
are required, provided that such affidavit shall be dispensed with
in case of applications made by or on behalf of the Government
of the Union, the Government of any State or the Government of
any foreign State."
22. The learned amicus has obtained information from various
High Courts as to the procedure followed by the High Courts for
furnishing certified copies of orders/judgments/documents. As per the
Rules framed by various High Courts, parties to the proceedings are
entitled to obtain certified copies of orders/judgments/documents on filing
of application along with prescribed court fees stamp. Insofar as
furnishing of certified copies to third parties, the Rules framed by the
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
High Courts stipulate that the certified copies of documents/orders or
judgments or copies of proceedings would be furnished to the third parties
only on the orders passed by the court or the Registrar, on being satisfied
about the reasonable cause and bona fide of the reasons seeking the
information/certified copies of the documents. We may refer to the
Rules framed by the High Courts of Bombay, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh,
Karnataka, Madras and various other High Courts which stipulate similar
provisions for furnishing information/certified copies to third parties. The
Rules stipulate that for the third parties to have access to the information
on the judicial side or obtaining certified copies of documents/judgments/
orders, the third parties will have to make an application stating the reasons
for which they are required and on payment of necessary court fees
stamp. As pointed out earlier, Supreme Court Rules also stipulate that
certified copies of documents or orders could be supplied to the third
parties 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.
The Rules of the High Court only stipulate that the third parties will have
to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for which the
information/certified copies are required. The Rules framed by the
Gujarat High Court are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI
Act. There is no inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act
with the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers
under Article 225 of the Constitution of India.
23. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned Senior counsel for the appellant
has submitted that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act grants a substantive right
and the person who is seeking information/copies is not required to give
any reason and this right cannot be curtailed or whittled down by
procedural laws framed by the High Court under Article 225 of the
Constitution of India. In support of his contention that the rules framed
by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 225 cannot make
or curtail any substantive law, reliance was placed upon Raj Kumar
Yadav v. Samir Kumar Mahaseth and Others (2005) 3 SCC 601.
Learned Senior counsel further submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act
specifically provides that the provisions of the RTI Act will have an
overriding effect over other laws for the time being in force. It was
therefore, submitted that in the event of any conflict between the
provisions of the RTI Act and any other laws made by the Parliament or
a State Legislature or any other authority, the provisions of the RTI Act
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
must prevail and therefore, the RTI Act would prevail over the rules
framed by the High Court. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for
the intervention applicants also reiterated the same submission.
24. In order to consider the contentions urged by the learned Senior
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, let us briefly refer
to the various categories of information held by the High Court, which
are broadly as under:-
(a) information held by the High Court relating to the parties to
the litigation/proceedings - pleadings, documents and other
materials and memo of grounds raised by the parties;
(b) orders and judgments passed by the High Court, notes of
proceedings, etc.;
(c) In exercise of power of superintendence over the other courts
and tribunals, information received in the records submitted/
called for by those courts and tribunals like subordinate
judiciary, various tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other
tribunals;
(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,
disciplinary action taken against the judicial officers and the
staff members and such other information relating to the
administrative work.
(e) Correspondence by the High Court with the Supreme Court,
Government and with the district judiciary, etc.;
and
(f) information on the administrative side as to the decision taken
by the collegium of the High Court in making recommendations
of the Judges to be appointed to the High Court; information
as to the assets of the sitting Judges held by the Chief Justice
of the High Court.
25. Information under the categories (a), (b) and (c) and other
information on the judicial side can be accessed/certified copies of
documents and orders could be obtained by the parties to the proceedings
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AND ANR. [R.