Live Law: Madurai: Sunday, June 04, 2017.
Madurai Bench
of the High Court of Madras has held that the Right to Information (RTI) Act,
2005 cannot be invoked at the first instance, if an effective alternative
remedy is available to obtain such information.
“Although the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has elaborately made his
submission and taken this Court through the Scheme of RTI Act, particularly,
Sections 4, 8 and 22 of the RTI Act, I am unable to persuade myself that RTI
Act can be invoked for all purposes regardless of the fact that there is
existence of alternative effective mechanism provided under the respective
departments for seeking information. If such recourse is encouraged and
entertained it will destroy the very frame work of the respective mechanism which
provides for furnishing information under the respective department,” Justice
V. Parthiban observed.
The Court was
hearing a Petition filed by Mr. S. Robinson, challenging an order passed by the
Tamil Nadu State Information Commission in February, 2014, wherein it had
refused to direct a Sub-Registrar at Tiruchendur to furnish information regarding
registration of two sale deeds. The Commission had directed him to access the
information by following the rules and regulations applicable to the
Registration Department, and the procedures devised by it.
Mr. Robinson
had now challenged the stand taken by the Commission, and had contended that
information sought under the Act cannot be refused unless the same falls under
Section 8 of the RTI Act, which exhaustively provides exemptions from
disclosure of information. He had further contended that the RTI Act has an
overriding effect over other laws.
The
Commission, on the other hand, had relied on an earlier decision of the Court
in the case of Registrar General, High Court of Madras v. K.U. Rajasekar,
wherein a Division Bench of the High Court had ruled against the Petitioner,
who had sought certain information from the Information Commissioner even
though such information was covered under the High Court Appellate Side Rules,
1965.
The Court
accepted such contentions and refused to interfere with the Commission’s
reasoning, observing, “The framers of the Act and the object behind the Act
would not have envisaged that any information to be sought can be made
available only under the RTI Act and not at all through other Acts. Such an
interpretation would not advance the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.”