claimed that as per Rule 7(iii) of Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules,
2008, PIO may not provide the information to the applicant if the information relates
to the confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by the
office of the District Judge for the appointment of ministerial staff. He also added
that nearly 62,000 candidates appeared for the exam and it will pose huge burden
on them if copies were provided to each and every candidate.
In the present case the exemption taken by the PIO for denying the
information sought by the appellant is Rule 7 (iii) of Delhi District Courts (Right to
Information) Rules, 2008 which states as under :
Exemption from disclosure of information: The Public Information Officer or
the Assistant Public Information Officer may not provide the information to the
applicant on the following grounds:…. (iii) The information relates to the
confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by the office of
the District Judge for the appointment of ministerial staff.
5. The Commission had in CIC/SG/A/2010/002021/9247 and in
CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/1147 with regard to Validity of exemptions contained in
District Court Rules visàvis
RTI Act had observed as follows:
“Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act lay down the grounds on the basis of which
information may be denied by the PIO. The District Court Rules have been made
by the High Court of Delhi (the “Delhi HC”) in exercise of its powers under
Section 28(1) of the RTI Act and notified in the New Delhi Gazette on May 6,
2009. Rules framed by a competent authority under Section 28(1) of the RTI Act
cannot go beyond the exemptions provided in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The
Supreme Court of India as well as various High Courts have categorically held
that subordinate legislations or rules cannot go beyond the letter of the delegating
legislation.
In Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn. v Shri Siri Ram AIR 2000 SC
2143, the Supreme Court of India held:
“It is well recognized principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule
making power by an Act does not enable the rule making authority to make rule
which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent
therewith or repugnant thereto.”
The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access to
information giving citizens the right to information. Hence, as observed by the Delhi
HC in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. S.C. Agarwal WP (C) No. 188/2009, the
RTI Act is premised on disclosure being the norm, and refusal, the exception.
According to the RTI Act, information may be exempted from disclosure in
accordance with Section 8 and 9 only and no other exemptions can be claimed
while rejecting a demand for disclosure.
The Delhi HC in Bhagat Singh v. CIC WP(C) No. 3114/2007 has held that
exemptions in the RTI should be strictly construed. It explained:
“Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions
under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental
right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in
manner as to shadow the very right itself.”
6. Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi in
CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147 while dealing with Rule 7 made under Delhi District
Court Rules, 2008 had observed that:
“It must be noted that no public body is permitted under the RTI Act to take upon
itself the role of the legislature and import new exemptions hitherto not provided.
The District Court Rules made by the competent authority under the RTI Act
appears to bring in exemptions not provided for in the RTI Act and transgress the
exemptions envisaged by the Parliament under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
Since the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, any move
which constricts it should be avoided. Even Parliament is very wary of the
restrictions it can place on the fundamental right of the citizen and hence
competent authorities would be well advised to ensure that they do not create any
exemptions which the lawmakers did not provide.”
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Appellant : Vipin Kumar
Respondent : Tis Hazari Court
Date of decision : 22.8.2014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Summary:
Through Rules new exceptions to disclosure cannot be added. Right to
information can be culled out from fundamental right to life and liberty under
Article 21 and from freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) which was more
specifically guaranteed by Right to Information Act. Sections 8 and 9 of Right to
Information Act made specific exemptions and the Right to Information under
Section 3 is subject to SS 8 and 9. The SS 8 & 9 constitutes reasonable restrictions
imposed by law as per Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Any further restriction
imposed through rules, will not only transgress the Right to Information Act, but
also violate Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Invoking the duty to recommend under Section 25(5) the Commission, therefore,
recommends the respondent Public Authority, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, to
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 1
amend the rules to bring it in conformity with RTI Act, for effective provision of
access to information and to bring uniformity with the rules made by DoPT which
are also followed by the Supreme Court.
Heard on 27.6.14. Appellant present along with Shri Yogender Kumar.
Public Authority is represented by Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Deepak.
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application with PIO, Tis Hazari Court seeking
the following information:
i) photocopy of evaluated answer sheet submitted by him and his
sister, marks given separately according to the question with both total marks.
ii) photocopy of evaluated answer sheets of three toppers in SC
category and their total marks separately.
3. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that they have the record but
claimed that as per Rule 7(iii) of Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules,
2008, PIO may not provide the information to the applicant if the information relates
to the confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by the
office of the District Judge for the appointment of ministerial staff. He also added
that nearly 62,000 candidates appeared for the exam and it will pose huge burden
on them if copies were provided to each and every candidate.
4. In the present case the exemption taken by the PIO for denying the
information sought by the appellant is Rule 7 (iii) of Delhi District Courts (Right to
Information) Rules, 2008 which states as under :
7. Exemption from disclosure of information: The Public Information Officer or
the Assistant Public Information Officer may not provide the information to the
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 2
applicant on the following grounds:…. (iii) The information relates to the
confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by the office of
the District Judge for the appointment of ministerial staff.
5. The Commission had in CIC/SG/A/2010/002021/9247 and in
CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/1147 with regard to Validity of exemptions contained in
District Court Rules visàvis
RTI Act had observed as follows:
“Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act lay down the grounds on the basis of which
information may be denied by the PIO. The District Court Rules have been made
by the High Court of Delhi (the “Delhi HC”) in exercise of its powers under
Section 28(1) of the RTI Act and notified in the New Delhi Gazette on May 6,
2009. Rules framed by a competent authority under Section 28(1) of the RTI Act
cannot go beyond the exemptions provided in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The
Supreme Court of India as well as various High Courts have categorically held
that subordinate legislations or rules cannot go beyond the letter of the delegating
legislation.
In Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn. v Shri Siri Ram AIR 2000 SC
2143, the Supreme Court of India held:
“It is well recognized principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule
making power by an Act does not enable the rule making authority to make rule
which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent
therewith or repugnant thereto.”
The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access to
information giving citizens the right to information. Hence, as observed by the Delhi
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 3
HC in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. S.C. Agarwal WP (C) No. 188/2009, the
RTI Act is premised on disclosure being the norm, and refusal, the exception.
According to the RTI Act, information may be exempted from disclosure in
accordance with Section 8 and 9 only and no other exemptions can be claimed
while rejecting a demand for disclosure.
The Delhi HC in Bhagat Singh v. CIC WP(C) No. 3114/2007 has held that
exemptions in the RTI should be strictly construed. It explained:
“Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions
under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental
right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in
manner as to shadow the very right itself.”
6. Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi in
CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147 while dealing with Rule 7 made under Delhi District
Court Rules, 2008 had observed that:
“It must be noted that no public body is permitted under the RTI Act to take upon
itself the role of the legislature and import new exemptions hitherto not provided.
The District Court Rules made by the competent authority under the RTI Act
appears to bring in exemptions not provided for in the RTI Act and transgress the
exemptions envisaged by the Parliament under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
Since the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, any move
which constricts it should be avoided. Even Parliament is very wary of the
restrictions it can place on the fundamental right of the citizen and hence
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 4
competent authorities would be well advised to ensure that they do not create any
exemptions which the lawmakers did not provide.”
7. The Commission dealt with the question of disclosure of Mark sheet /
answer sheet of Judicial Service in CIC/WB/A/2007/00124 whereby Rule 5 (c)
of Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 was used for denying
information to the appellant. The Commission in the present case had noted that
the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice who then directed that the
matter be placed before a Committee consisting of the Hon’ble Ms. Gita Mittal J.,
Sh. A.K. Sikri, J. and Shri Mukul Mudgal, J. In their submission of Oct 30, 2007, the
Hon’ble Justices recommended as follows:
“The Committee has been consistently directing disclosure of marks and other
non confidential information to the candidates of Delhi Judicial Service
Examination, Delhi High Judicial Service Examination and other examinations
conducted by this Court. Precedents in the form of information supplied by the
Public Information Officer of this Court pursuant to the directions of the
Committee may kindly be seen at Flag ’X’.
The confidentiality clause in Rule 5© of Delhi High Court (Right to
Information) Rules, 2006 cannot be invoked to decline disclosure of marks
obtained by a candidate in an examination. On the other hand, a candidate
is entitled to know the marks obtained in an examination. We are of the
opinion that the information sought by the appellant ought to be supplied to him
under intimation to the Central Information Commission.”
8. The Commission further in CIC/WB/A/2007/00418 titled Ms. Kamini Jaiswal
Vs. Delhi High court dealt with the question of applicability of Rule 4 (iv) Delhi High
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 5
Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 for denying of information and also
whether the Commission had power to strike down the rules. The Commission
observed that:
Sec. 6 of the RTI Act is clear in that it provides all persons seeking information,
only subject to being citizens of India as per sec. 3, the right to make a request in
writing or by electronic means, specifying the particulars of the information
sought by him or her. Under sec. 7(1) the only ground on which such information
can be refused is “for any of the reasons specified in sec. 8 & 9”. In this case the
refusal of information has been made without seeking any exemption of either of
these sections. It is, therefore, clear that rule 4(iv) and 5(a) are inconsistent with
the RTI Act and, therefore, the provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding the content of the inconsistent rules.
The question, therefore, only remains as to whether this Commission has the
authority to strike down such a rule or to advise the public authority, in this case
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, as we have done in the case of Shri Manish
Khanna above u/s 25(5).
In the above cited case what we have found was not that the rules of the Hon’ble
High Court were inconsistent with the Right to Information Act which will render
them invalid, but we only found that the heavy fee sought to be recovered under
the Delhi High Court Right to Information Rules did not conform with the spirit of
the RTI Act. Our finding in this case leading to the conclusion quoted by learned
counsel Shri Bansal was as below:
“Having heard the arguments on both sides and perused the file together with the
law we agree with Shri Mahajan, Jt. Registrar that the competent authority for
formulating rules has been clearly laid down in Section 2 (c) read with Section 2
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 6
(g). In Section 2 (e) (iii) a competent authority is the Chief Justice of the High
Court in the case of High Court whereas in the case of Government of India, it is
the President. Section 28 provides the powers to make rules to the competent
authority. Section 28 (2) is only illustrative.
Also the examples cited by the complainant with regard to the Commission
having set aside forms and orders of a particular authority do not concern the
rules made by the ‘competent authority’, which in the case of Government
departments is the President of India working through the Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pensions in the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT).
Whereas rules made by a public authority are therefore subject to complaint or
appeal before us, this Commission, a creature of the Act does not have the
authority to question the competence of a competent authority as prescribed
under the Act, in formulation and framing of Rules as prescribed under this Act.
Nor has this Commission ventured to do so. A point to note in this matter is that
whereas rules made by the President or the Governor as competent authority
require to be placed before Parliament or the State assembly, in the case of the
Supreme Court and HighCourt these do not require the sanction of any other
authority.”
In the present case, however, the argument is that the rule is in direct conflict with
the RTI Act. In this case, therefore, we require examining whether sec. 19 (8) (a)
will apply, which reads as follows:
In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to
secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—
i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 7
ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be;
iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance,
management and destruction of records;
v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
vi) (a) by providing it with an annual report in compliance
with clause (b) of subsection
(1) of section 4;”
In this case, therefore, we decide as follows:
1) The Registrar Delhi High Court will take such steps as may be necessary to
provide access to the information sought under sec. 19(a)(i) to appellant Ms
Jaiswal in the form in which it had been sought. This will be done within ten
working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice
2) We find u/s 25(5) of the RI Act, 2005 that the practice of the High Court in
relation to providing access to information under this Act in terms of sec. 4(iv)
and sec. 5(a) of the Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules does not
conform expressly with the provisions of the Act. It is recommended to the
Delhi High Court, therefore, that such steps maybe taken to amend these
rules as would make them consistent with the sec. 6 and sec. 7 of the RTI
Act.
The commission as stated above sent a recommendation to the Delhi
High Court to take steps to amend the rules as would make them consistent
with Sec 6 and Sec 7 of the RTI Act.
9. The Commission in Pawan Kumar Vs. Punjab & Haryana High
Court [CIC/WB/A/2009/000211] dealt with denial information under rule 4
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 8
(c) of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Right to Information) Rules,
2007. The Commission had observed that:
“In deciding this case we might refer to a similar exercise conducted in the Delhi
High Court, Rule 5 of the RTI Rules of which has considerable similarity with
Rule 4 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (RTI) Rules 2007
After publication of the Delhi Court (RTI Rules) in Nov 2006, reconsidering the
question of disclosure of information in light of Sec 22 of the RTI Act on the
recommendations of this Commission, the DHC in its Notification
No.46/Rules/DHC dated 22.1.09 has been pleased to amend Rule 5 as follows:
“The existing Rule 5(a) shall be substituted by the following Rule 5(a): 5.
Exemption from disclosure of information – The information specified under
Section 8 of the Act shall not be disclosed and made available and in particular
the following information shall not be disclosed:
(a) Such information, which relates to judicial functions and duties of
the Court and matters incidental and ancillary thereto.”
On the specific question of disclosure of examination results, the following
provision of Rule 5 (c) of the Delhi High Court Right to Information Rules, 2006,
which will have relevance in the Punjab & Haryana High Court also:
“Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination conducted by
Delhi High Court including Delhi Judicial Service and Delhi Higher Judicial
Service. The question of confidentiality shall be decided by the Competent
Authority whose decision shall be final.”
In the case of the Delhi High Court, the earliest Decision Notice of this
Commission on the entire issue was in Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00124
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 9
Narender Yadav vs. High Court of Delhi. In this case the Commission
had decided as follows, but more importantly, it can be seen that this
Decision sprang from a decision of the Delhi High Court itself, by which the
entire issue was set at rest:
“Respondent Shri R. Gopalan, Asstt. Registrar and APIO submitted to us the
noting of the deliberations in the Hon’ble High Court seeking orders of Hon’ble
the Chief Justice on the following with regard to the application of Shri Narender
Yadav:
“a) Whether information sought by the appellant may be supplied to him
OR
b) Mr. R.S. Chhabra or Mr. Viraj R. Datar /Mr. Rajiv Bansal, nominated counsel
may be engaged to represent this Court before CIC on 13.12.07 and on
subsequent dates towhich matter may be adjourned.
c) If suggestion (b) above finds favour with Hon’ble The Chief Justice, the papers
may be forwarded to the counsel so nominated for taking appropriate action in
the matter.”
Hon’ble Chief Justice directed that the matter be placed before a Committee
consisting of the Hon’ble Ms. Gita Mittal J., Sh. A.K. Sikri, J. and Shri Mukul
Mudgal, J. In their submission of Oct 30, 2007, the Hon’ble Justices
recommended as follows:
“The Committee has been consistently directing disclosure of marks and other
non confidential information to the candidates of Delhi Judicial Service
Examination, Delhi High Judicial Service Examination and other examinations
conducted by this Court. Precedents in the form of information supplied by the
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 10
Public Information Officer of this Court pursuant to the directions of the
Committee may kindly be seen at Flag ’X’.
The confidentiality clause in Rule 5(c) of Delhi High Court
(Right to Information) Rules, 2006 cannot be invoked to
decline disclosure of marks obtained by a candidate in an
examination. On the other hand, a candidate is entitled to
know the marks obtained in an examination.
We are of the opinion that the information sought by the
appellant ought to be supplied to him under intimation to the Central Information
Commission.”
Appellant Shri Narender Yadav on the other hand, while agreeing that he has
received the information sought, argued that there had been undue delay on the
part of the PIO in providing him the information resulting from the initial refusal
subsequently established to be unfounded.”
Consequently our Decision Notice in this case was:
Hon’ble the High Court of Delhi deserves plaudits for the manner in which it has
reviewed its own initial reaction to the request for information and now laid
guidelines as a result of the recommendations submitted by the Committee of
Hon’ble Justices on 30.10.07 delineating principles on disclosure of marks and
other nonconfidential
information of candidates for public examinations. We find
no merit in the submission of appellant Shri Narender Yadav in his arguments
before us that undue delay has occurred in this case. The PIO has responded to
the application within one day with his reading of the Delhi High Court (RTI)
Rules, 2006. Sec.5(c) of these rules reads as follows:
“Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination
conducted by Delhi High Court including Delhi Judicial Service and Delhi
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 11
High Judicial Service, the question of confidentiality shall be decided by
the Competent Authority whose decision shall be final.”
We agree with appellant Shri Narender Yadav that rules are to be read with the
Act and in no case can actually override the Act. Under Sec.7 (1) of the Act
information is to be provided “on payment of such fee as may be prescribed” and
rejected only “for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 & 9 ”. Although
therefore, the authority to make rules concerns only fee and not the nature of
discloseable information, the CPIO was well within his authority to interpret the
rules to the best of his understanding, which he has done. The matter now stands
clarified by the recommendations of the Committee of Hon’ble Judges in terms of
its application to the High Court. The issue is now set at rest.
In our view this ruling will have a direct bearing on the present case, from the
question of setting up a Committee by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, to the question
of rules overriding a legislation and even to the manner of disposal of the
application by the CPIO, in the present case the APIO, Dy Registrar (Adm),High
Court of Punjab & Haryana.
At the same time, it is also correct that as held by the APIO, the authority to make
rules to carry out the provisions of this Act u/s 28(1) of the RTI Act rests squarely
with the competent authority, which includes other than the fee “any other matter
which is required to be or may be prescribed”. In the present case, however, it
stands clearly established, keeping in view the rules already prescribed by the
High Court of Delhi, that the High Court of Punjab & Haryana is required to take
steps as may be necessary, to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act,
which will include managing the information sought by appellant Shri Pawan
Kumar in the present case in a manner commensurate with the law. For the
above reasons, therefore, this Commission, under the authority vested in us
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 12
under sub sec. (v) of Sec. 25 of the RTI Act finding that the provisions of Sec.
4(c) of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007
are liable to interpretation that is not in conformity with the Right to Information
Act, 2005 specifically on the basis of the conclusions arrived at on an
examination of a similar rule by the Committee constituted by Hon’ble Chief
Justice of the Delhi High Court in their submissions contained in their report
dated October 3, 2007, recommends to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of
Punjab & Haryana that he constitutes a similar Committee to examine the
provisions of Rule 4(c) of the Punjab & Haryana (Right to Information) Rules,
2007 so as to bring this into conformity with the Right to Information Act, 2005,
subsequent to which the information sought by appellant Shri Pawan Kumar will
be provided to him in accordance with the decision of such Committee, within ten
working days of the acceptance of the report of the Committee by the Chief
Justice of High Court of Punjab & Haryana. While allowing the appeal to this
extent, because we are also convinced of APIO, HCoP&H having disposed of the
matter to the best of his understanding of the application of the Rules, there will
be no cost.”
The Commission in the above case also sent recommendations to Chief
justice of High Court of Punjab & Haryana to bring the Rule 4 (c) of Punjab
& Haryana (Right to Information) Rules 2007 in conformity with Right to
Information Act, 2005.
10. The Commission in Keshav Kaushik Vs High Court of Allahabad
[CIC/WB/A/2010/000222SM]
dealt with the question of disclosure of
evaluated answersheets
of various papers of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial
Services Examination, 2009 which the appellant had taken. The said
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 13
information was denied to the appellant on the ground of application not
being in conformity with Rule 3, 4 and 20 (a) (v) of the Allahabad High Court
(Right to Information) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter “AHC RTI Rules”). The said
rules are as follows:
“3. Every application shall be made for one particular item of information only.
4. Each application shall be accompanied by cash or draft or pay order of Rs.
500/drawn
in favour of the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, or the
District Judge of the concerned District Court as the case might be.
20. Notwithstanding anything contained anywhere else in these Rules, the
applicant will be furnished with the information requested for, if and only if (a) the
furnishing of such information is (v) not otherwise against any law or practice
prevailing in the material regard;”
The Commission observed that:
In the Commission’s opinion, some of these rules, on the face of it, are not in
conformity with the RTI Act, 2005. Rule 3 provides that “Every application shall
be made for one particular item of information only.” However, there is no such
requirement provided in the RTI Act, 2005.
Similar is the case with Rule 20(a) (v) which says that “Notwithstanding anything
contained anywhere else in these Rules, the applicant will be furnished with the
information requested for, if and only if (a) the furnishing of such information is:
(v) not otherwise against any law or practice prevailing in the material regard;”. In
catena of judgments, various High Courts all over India have held that no
exemption except otherwise provided in the RTI Act will apply to the disclosure of
information by any public authority. Rule 20 (a) (v) creates a new exemption
which bars the disclosure of information. Hence, it clearly seems to derogate
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 14
from the vires of the parent statute, i.e. the RTI Act. Hence, this provision is not in
conformitywith the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, 2005.
Furthermore, the Commission is of the opinion that the present appeal involves
issues which have already been decided earlier by the Commission. Hence the
Commission sees no reason to deviate from its earlier position. The CPIO, High
Court of Allahabad is hereby directed to provide the information sought by the
Appellant in para (i) to (vi) of his RTI application. The information sought in para
(vi) of the application may be provided as the marks obtained by a candidate in a
competitive examination cannot be treated as third party information. The
information shall be furnished to the Appellant within ten working days from the
receipt of this order.
Before concluding, the Commission would like to recommend the Hon’ble High
Court of Allahabad under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005 to revisit its
Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 so as to bring them in
conformity with the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission in the above decision has also recommended to the Chief
Justice of Allahabad High Court to amend its Allahabad High Court (Right
to Information) Rules, 2006 so as to bring them in conformity with the RTI
Act, 2005.
RTI Rules by High Courts:
A. Bombay High Court Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009 :
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 15
Procedure for Application and its Disposal
4. A person who desires to obtain information under Right to Information Act, shall
make a requisition in a self signed application in FormA
appended hereto to the
Public Information Officer, accompanied by a fee of rupees ten by way of cash
against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker’s cheque or money order
payable to the public authority or by affixing a court fee stamp of rupees ten and a
selfaddressed
envelope bearing postal stamps equivalent to the rate prescribed for
Registered Post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) along with the application.
Procedure to be adopted after presentation of application
6. The Public Information officer shall decide as to whether the information
desired by the applicant can be provided or the inspection of record can be carried
out as per rules. If he decides affirmatively then he shall inform the applicant in
Form –B appended hereto about the fee prescribed for supplying of such information
and approximate postal charges thereof before providing the desired information. In
case the application is received by post, the Public Information Officer shall inform
the applicant about the prescribed fee in FormB
through the envelope received
alongwith the application. He shall supply the desired information or record for
inspection only after the deposit of prescribed fee as per Rule 17 bny the applicant.
If the applicant desires to seek information by post, he shall submit a self addressed
envelope with postal stamps equivalent to the rate prescribed for Registered Post
with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) alongwith the prescribed fee on receipt of the
intimation by the Public Information Officer to that effect. If the said fee is not
deposited within 15 days, the application shall stand rejected.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 16
…….
10(1) If the applicant seeks any information with respect to a Third Party he shall
send/submit an application with said details, accompanied by a fee of rupees ten by
way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker’s cheque or money
order payable to the public authority or by affixing a court fee stamp of rupees ten
and a self addressed envelope bearing postal stamps equivalent to the rates
prescribed for RPAD along with the application.
(2) On receipt of such application, Public Information Officer shall register the
application in the register maintained in his office for that purpose and deal with it as
provided under Section 11 of the Act.
(3) If the information, sought by the applicant, is in respect of judicial proceedings or
record he shall obtained the information as per the procedure prescribed for
obtaining certified copies under the Rules and Orders for the time being in force in
that behalf.
(4) In the event the Public Information Officer rejects the Application for information,
he shall inform the applicant in FormC.
Procedure for Inspection of Records:
12. During inspection, the applicant shall not have any right to put any mark on the
record. During inspection of record, if the applicant wishes to make notes, he shall
make them on a plain paper and after inspection he shall show the note/s to the
Public Information Officer, who after being satisfied that the applicant has not
tampered with the record in any way, shall return such note/s to the applicant.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 17
13. Exemption from disclosure of information:
The information specified under Section 8 of the Act shall not be disclosed and
made available, and, in particular the following information shall not be disclosed:(
a) Such information which is not in the Public domain;
(b) Information which relates to Judicial functions and duties of the Courts and
matters incidental and ancillary thereto;
…..
(e) Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination conducted by the
Bombay High Court including for the Maharashtra Judicial Service and Maharashtra
Higher Judicial Service. The question of confidentiality shall be decided byt he
Competent Authority whose decision shall be final.
(f) Information/copy/ies inspection with respect to cases pending in Court, which
shall be obtained from the Court, as per the rules and orders in force for the time
being;
…
(h) Information which is contained in published material available to the Public or
which is available on the Web Site.
….
Appeal
15.Any person who does not receive any decision within the time prescribed under
clause (a) of subsection
(3) or subsection
(1) of Section (7) of the Act, as the
case may be, or who is aggrieved by the decision of the public information officer or
assistant public information officer, as the case may be, may prefer an appeal in
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 18
writing to the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Bombay or any other
officer as nominated by the Chief Justice for Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa, who is
the First Appellate Authority accompanied by the appeal fee of rupees 20 by way of
cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or money order
payable to the public authority or by affixing a court fee stamp of Rs 20. The memo
of the said appeal shall contain in brief, the particulars regarding the case, the
grounds of appeal and a certified copy of the order passed by the public information
officer. The appeal shall be disposed of by the First Appellate Authority, after
providing an opportunity of a hearing to the parties.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 19
B. Maharashtra District Court, Right to Information Rules 2009:
Procedure for Application and its Disposal
4. A person who desires to obtain information under Right to Information Act, shall
make a requisition in a self signed application in FormA
appended hereto to the
Public Information Officer, accompanied by a fee of rupees ten by way of cash
against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker’s cheque or money order
payable to the public authority or by affixing a court fee stamp of rupees ten and a
selfaddressed
envelope bearing postal stamps equivalent to the rate prescribed for
Registered Post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) along with the application.
Procedure to be adopted after presentation of application
6. The Public Information officer shall decide as to whether the information
desired by the applicant can be provided or the inspection of record can be carried
out as per rules. If he decides affirmatively then he shall inform the applicant in
Form –B appended hereto about the fee prescribed for supplying of such information
and approximate postal charges thereof before providing the desired information. In
case the application is received by post, the Public Information Officer shall inform
the applicant about the prescribed fee in FormB
through the envelope received
along with the application. He shall supply the desired information or record for
inspection only after the deposit of prescribed fee as per Rule 17 to the applicant. If
the applicant desires to seek information by post, he shall submit a self addressed
envelope with postal stamps equivalent to the rate prescribed for Registered Post
with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) alongwith the prescribed fee on receipt of the
intimation by the Public Information Officer to that effect. If the said fee is not
deposited within 15 days, the application shall stand rejected.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 20
…….
10(1) If the applicant seeks any information with respect to a Third Party he shall
send/submit an application with said details, accompanied by a fee of rupees ten by
way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker’s cheque or money
order payable to the public authority or by affixing a court fee stamp of rupees ten
and a self addressed envelope bearing postal stamps equivalent to the rates
prescribed for RPAD along with the application.
(2) On receipt of such application, Public Information Officer shall register the
application in the register maintained in his office for that purpose and deal with it as
provided under Section 11 of the Act.
(3) If the information, sought by the applicant, is in respect of judicial proceedings or
record he shall obtained the information as per the procedure prescribed for
obtaining certified copies under the Rules and Orders for the time being in force in
that behalf.
(4) In the event the Public Information Officer rejects the Application for information,
he shall inform the applicant in FormC.
Procedure for Inspection of Records:
12. During inspection, the applicant shall not have any right to put any mark on the
record. During inspection of record, if the applicant wishes to make notes, he shall
make them on a plain paper and after inspection he shall show the note/s to the
Public Information Officer, who after being satisfied that the applicant has not
tampered with the record in any way, shall return such note/s to the applicant.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 21
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 22
13. Exemption from disclosure of information:
The information specified under Section 8 of the Act shall not be disclosed and
made available, and, in particular the following information shall not be disclosed:(
a) Such information which is not in the Public domain;
(b) Information which relates to Judicial functions and duties of the Courts and
matters incidental and ancillary thereto;
…..
(e) Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination conducted by the
Bombay High Court including for the Maharashtra Judicial Service and Maharashtra
Higher Judicial Service. The question of confidentiality shall be decided byt he
Competent Authority whose decision shall be final.
(f) Information/copy/ies inspection with respect to cases pending in Court, which
shall be obtained from the Court, as per the rules and orders in force for the time
being;
…
(h) Information which is contained in published material available to the Public or
which is available on the Web Site.
Appeal
14. Any person who does not receive any decision within the time prescribed
under clause (a) of subsection
(3) or subsection
(1) of Section (7) of the Act,
as the case may be, or who is aggrieved by the decision of the public information
officer or assistant public information officer, as the case may be, may prefer an
appeal in writing to the Principal District Judge or any other officer not below the
rank of the District Judge (Entry level) as nominated by the Chief Justice, who is
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 23
the First Appellate Authority accompanied by the appeal fee of rupees 20 by
way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or
money order payable to the public authority or by affixing a court fee stamp of Rs
20. The memo of the said appeal shall contain in brief, the particulars regarding
the case, the grounds of appeal and a certified copy of the order passed by the
public information officer. The appeal shall be disposed of by the First Appellate
Authority, after providing an opportunity of a hearing to the parties.
C. Madras High Court (Regulation of fee and cost) Rules 2007:
Rule 3. Fees Every
application for obtaining information under subsection
(1)
of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by an application fee of rupees
Ten.
Rule 4. Charges – For providing the information under Section 7 (1) and (5) of
the Act, the following charges are payable: (
a) The application requiring copy of order, judgment/statements/reports shall
accompany, in addition to the application fee, a sum of Rs 100 towards cost. If,
the actual cost of charges for information exceeds Rs. 100 then the same would
be intimated to the applicant and the copy of information would be furnished on
payment of excess amount ; and
(b) for information to be provided in a diskette or a floppy a sum of
Rs. 50.
The fees/charge’s payable under Rule 3 & 4 shall be paid either in cash or Court
Fee stamp or Demand Draft/Postal Order drawn in favour of PIO, High Court,
Madras/Treasury Challan.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 24
D. Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 :
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28 of the Right to Information Act,
2005 (22 of 2005) the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
hereby makes the following rules to carry out the provisions of the Act.
3. Every application shall be made for one particular item of
Information only.
4. Each application shall be accompanied by cash or draft or pay order of Rs.
500/drawn
in favour of the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, or the
District Judge of the concerned District Court as the case might be.
5. If the application is permitted, the applicant shall be entitled to the Information
only after he makes payment in cash at the rate of Rs. 15/per
page of
information to be supplied to him.
……
24. If any person does not receive the desired information or decision for
rejecting the request within the time specified in the Act, he/she may prefer an
appeal to the appellate authority notified under rules of the Act within thirty days
from expiry of the period stipulated in the Act or within thirty days from the receipt
of decision of rejection of his request by the Central Public Information Officer.
25. Central Public Information Officer shall not be liable to provide any
information, which can be obtained under the provision of the Allahabad High
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 25
Court Rules, 1952 in case of High Court and under General Rule (Civil/Criminal)
in case of subordinate Courts. Such information may be obtained by adhering to
the prescribed procedure and payment of fees prescribed in the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952, or General Rules (Civil/Criminal), as the case may be.
26. Central Public Information Officer will not entertain any application from any
citizen for providing any information relating to matters, which are pending
adjudication before the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto. The information
relating to judicial matters may be obtained as per the procedure prescribed in
the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 and General Rules (Civil/Criminal)
respectively.
27. Central Public Information Officer will not entertain any application from any
citizen for inspection of any record which can be inspected under the Allahabad
High Court Rules 1952 and General Rules (Civil/Criminal) as the case may be.
E. Karnataka High Court Right
to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost)
Rules, 2005.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28 of the Right to Information Act,
2005, the High Court of Karnataka makes the following rules, namely:
3. A request for obtaining information under subsection
(1) of the Section 6 shall
be accompanied by an application fee of Rs.10/(
Ten) by way of cash against a
proper receipt payable in the name of Registrar General.
4. For providing the information under subsection
(1) of Section 7, the fee shall
be charged by way of cash against proper receipt payable to Registrar General at
the following rates:a.
Rs.3/for
each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied;
b. Actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper;
c. Actual cost or price for samples or models; and
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 26
d. For inspection of records no fee for the first hour and a fee of Rs.5 for each
fifteen minutes (for fraction thereof); thereafter
5. For providing the information under subsection
(5) of Section 7 the fee shall
be charged by way of cash against proper receipt payable to the Registrar
General at the following rates:
(a) For information provided in a diskette or floppy Rs.50/per
diskette or
floppy; and
(b) For information provided in printed form at the price fixed for such publication
or Rs.2/per
page of photocopy for extracts from the publication.
6. ….
7. …
8. If the applicant requests that the information be sent by post and pays the
requisite postal charges in cash payable in the name of Registrar General, the
information shall be sent by registered post in return of acknowledgement and the
date of dispatch shall be entered in the dispatch register.
F. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007
Rule 4 Exemption from disclosure of Information:
(1) The Information which relates to judicial functions and duties of the Court and
matters incidental and ancillary thereto and of confidential nature shall not be
disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.
Provided that the question as to which information relates to judicial functions,
duties of Court and matters incidental and ancillary or of confidentiality shall be
decided by the Competent Authority or his delegate, whose decision shall be
final.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 27
(2) Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination/ selection
process conducted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for any or all
categories of posts including that for Punjab/Haryana Civil Services (Judicial
Branch) and Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Services.
Provided that the marks obtained by the candidates in each subject shall be
displayed on the website of the Court after the conclusion of the selection
process or at any early date, if decided to be disclosed not affecting the
confidentially and transparency of selection process.
…….
Rule 9 – Penalties
(i)Whoever being bound to supply information fails to furnish the information
asked for, under the Act, within the time specified or fails to communicate the
rejection order, shall be liable to pay a penalty up to fifty rupees per day for the
delayed period beyond thirty days subject to a maximum of five hundred rupees
per application, filed under rule 3 as may be determined by the appellate
authority.
(ii) Where the information supplied is found to be false in any material particular
and which the person is bound to supply it knows and has reason to believe it to
be false or does not believe it to be true, the person supplying the information
shall be liable to pay a penalty of one thousand rupees, to be imposed by the
appellate authority.
Rule 10 – Suo Moto publication of information by Public authorities
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 28
Rule 11 – Maintenance of records
G. The Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005
4. Disposal of application by the authorized person:
(5) Exemption from disclosure of information The
information specified under
Section 8 of the Act shall not be disclosed and made available and in particular
the following information shall not be disclosed:(
a) Any information which is not in the public domain or does not relate to
judicial functions and duties of the Court and matters incidental and ancillary
thereto.
(b) ……..
(c) Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination
conducted by the Gujarat High Court including Gujarat Judicial Service and
Gujarat Higher Judicial Service. The question of confidentiality shall be decided
by the Competent Authority whose decision shall be final.
(6) Any information which is to be furnished and access to records shall be
subject to the restrictions and prohibitions contained in rules / regulations and
destruction of records in force from time to time which may have been notified or
implemented by this Court.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 29
(7) No Judicial Officer shall be compelled to appear in person before any
Authority, State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information
Commissioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, if he has made
necessary arrangement for production or supply of materials required under the
said Act.
5. Appeal.
(1) Any person—
(a) who fails to get a response in Form C or Form D from the authorised
person within thirty days of submission of Form A, or
(b) is aggrieved by the response received within the prescribed period,
appeal in Form F to the Appellate Authority [and deposit fee for appeal as per rule
8 with the appellate authority.] (Deleted vide High Court Notification
No.C.3001/2005, dated 09.11.2006)
(2) On receipt of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall acknowledge the
receipt of appeal and after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard,
shall endeavour to dispose it of within thirty days from the date on which it is
presented and send a copy of the decision to the authorised person concerned.
(3) In case the appeal is allowed, the information shall be supplied to
the applicant by the authorised person within such period as ordered by the
Appellate Authority. This period shall not exceed thirty days from the date of the
receipt of the order.
6. Penalties. –
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 30
(1) Whoever being bound to supply information fails to furnish the information
asked for under the Act within the time specified or fails to communicate the
rejection order, shall be liable to pay a penalty up to fifty rupees per day for the
delayed period beyond thirty days subject to a maximum of five hundred rupees
per application, filed under rule 3 as may be determine by the appellate authority.
(2) Where the information supplied is found to be false in any material
particular and which the person is bound to supply it knows and has reason to
believe it to be false or does not believe it to be true, the person supplying the
information shall be liable to pay a penalty of one thousand rupees, to be
imposed by the appellate authority.
8. Charging of Fee. (
1) The authorized person shall charge the fee at the following rates, namely:
(A) Application Fee.
(i) Information relating to Five hundred rupees tender documents/bids/ per
application quotation/business contract:
(ii) Information other than Fifty rupees
(i) above per application
(B) …….
H. The Calcutta High Court (Right to Information) Rules , 2006
7. Penalties. –
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 31
(1) Whoever being bound to supply information fails to furnish the information asked
for under the Act within the time specified or fails to communicate the rejection
order, shall be laible to pay a penalty up to 50 rupees per day for the de;ayed
period beyond thirty days subject to a maximum of 500 Rs per application filed
under rule 3 as may be determined by the Appellate Authority
(2) Where the information supplied is found to be false in any material particular and
which the person is bound to supply it knows and has reason to believe it to be
false or does not believe it to be true, the person supplying the information shall
be liable to pay a penalty of 1000 Rs, to be imposed by the Appellate Authority
provided that the PIO or APIO, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before the penalty is imposed on him.
9. Fees : (
1) The authorized person shall charge the fee at the following rate : A
Application Fee –
(i) Information relating to
Tenders documents/bids/quotation/
Business contract: 500 Rs per application
(ii) Information other than above 50 Rs per application
(B) ……
[The Fees in Rule 9 (1) A (ii) was amended to 10 Rs Via Notification No. 133 – G
dated 09 Jan 2007]
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 32
(1) Whoever being bound to supply information fails to furnish the information
asked for under the Act within the time specified or fails to communicate the
rejection order, shall be liable to pay a penalty up to fifty rupees per day for the
delayed period beyond thirty days subject to a maximum of five
Supreme Court of India
It is to be noted that the Supreme Court of India preferred not to make any specific
rules but stated to have been following “G.S.R. 336 dated 16.09.2005, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel &
Training” [http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/rti.htm]
Thus, the question before the Commission is not the point of Rule making power or
capacity of the competent authority, i.e., the Delhi High Court, in this case, but
whether such rule is in conformity with the provisions of parent legislation and
whether it helps in carrying out the objectives of RTI legislation especially when
such a rule is not supported by any provision of Right to Information Act, 2005
itself.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CBSE Vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors. [(2011)8SCC497] with regard to right to inspect the
answer sheet of the examinees themselves has stated that:
“13. The examining bodies (Universities, Examination Boards, CBSE etc.) are
neither security nor intelligence organizations and therefore the exemption under
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 33
Section 24 will not apply to them. The disclosure of information with reference to
answerbooks
does not also involve infringement of any copyright and therefore
Section 9 will not apply. Resultantly, unless the examining bodies are able to
demonstrate that the evaluated answerbooks
fall under any of the categories of
exempted 'information' enumerated in Clauses (a) to (j) of Subsection
(1)
Section 8, they will be bound to provide access to the information and any
applicant can either inspect the document/record, take notes, extracts or obtain
certified copies thereof.”
18 …………. What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee
is entitled to inspect his evaluated answerbooks
or take certified copies thereof.
This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or byelaws
of
examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them and entitles them to
have access to the answerbooks
as 'information' and inspect them and take
certified copies thereof. Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the
said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of
the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the byelaws/
rules of the examining
bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able
to demonstrate that the answerbooks
fall under the exempted category of
information described in Clause (e) of Section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining
body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies
of his evaluated answerbooks,
even if such inspection or taking copies is barred
under the rules/byelaws
of the examining body governing the examinations.
……”
12. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held in Union of India v Central
Information Commission [WP (C) 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008,
9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 and 3607/2007] had observed that:
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 34
“49. It was urged by Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act is not the complete code or the grounds
under which information can be refused and public information officers/appellate
authorities can deny information for other justifiable reasons and grounds not
mentioned. It is not possible to accept the said contention. Section 22 of the RTI
Act gives supremacy to the said Act and stipulates that the provisions of the RTI
Act will override notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Official
Secrets Act or any other enactment for the time being in force. This nonobstante
clause has to be given full effect to, in compliance with the legislative intent.
Wherever there is a conflict between the provisions of the RTI Act and another
enactment already in force on the date when the RTI Act was enacted, the
provisions of the RTI Act will prevail. It is a different matter in case RTI Act itself
protects a third enactment, in which case there is no conflict. Once an applicant
seeks information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the same cannot be
denied to the information seeker except on any of the grounds mentioned in
Sections 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer or the appellate
authorities cannot add and introduced new reasons or grounds for
rejecting furnishing of information. …”
Decision:
Section 25(5) of RTI Act says: If it appears to the Central Information Commission
or State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a public
authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not
conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a
recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for
promotion of such conformity.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 35
It appears to this Commission that District Court Rules made by the competent
authority under the RTI Act appears to bring in exemptions not provided for in the
RTI Act and transgress the exemptions envisaged by the Parliament under
Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, which practice of a public authority in relation to
the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or
spirit of this Act.
Right to information can be culled out from fundamental right to life and liberty
under Article 21 and from freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) which was
more specifically guaranteed by Right to Information Act. Sections 8 and 9 of Right
to Information Act made specific exemptions and the Right to Information under
Section 3 is subject to SS 8 and 9. The SS 8 & 9 constitutes reasonable
restrictions imposed by law as per Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Any further
restriction imposed through rules, will not only transgress the Right to Information
Act, but also violate Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The apex
body of Judiciary, the Supreme Court of India, framed rules that are in conformity
with the law and follows the common rules made by DoPT. The High Court being a
Constitutional Court which judicially enforce the fundamental rights and adjudicate
disputes about statutorily guaranteed rights such as RTI, is legitimately expected to
frame rules in accordance with the provisions and spirit of Right to Information Act.
The other Public Authorities generally look to the Hon’ble High Court as model and
draw inspiration from. It is in general public interest that the rules made by Delhi
High Court or for that matter any High Court in India, should be in conformity with
the letter and spirit of RTI Act, and rules followed by the Supreme Court.
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Page 36
Invoking the duty to recommend under Section 25(5) the Commission,
therefore, recommends the respondent Public Authority, the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court, to amend the rules to bring it in conformity with RTI Act, for
effective provision of access to information and to bring uniformity with the
rules made by DoPT which are also followed by the Supreme Court.
Sd/(
M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(Babu Lal)
Dy. Registrar
CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
No comments:
Post a Comment