Bar & Bench: Jaipur: Thursday, 11 February
2016.
We may well be witness to yet another instance of an
authority deviating from the objects of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Only this time, is the administrative section of the Rajasthan High Court that
has been called into question.
An engineering graduate from IIT Kharagpur, Dharma Raj
Chandel, has filed a writ petition at the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High
Court challenging the Rajasthan Right to
Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules 2006.
By way of background, the petitioner Dharma Raj Chandel,
had filed an RTI query seeking from the High Court information on the status of
ignominious godman Asaram Bapu’s incarceration. To his consternation, Chandel
found that he was asked to pay a fee of Rs. 100 for the information. Worse, for
information on “tender documents/bids/quotation/business contract”, the fee was
Rs. 500.
Rule 4(1) of the High Court Rules states:
“Any person seeking information under the Act shall make
an application in Form ‘A’ to the Authorized Person along with non-judicial
stamp, of Rs. 100 duly affixed on/attached to it, which shall be
non-refundable:
Provided that where the information relates to tender
documents/bids/quotation/business contract, the application fee shall be Rs.
500 per application.”
In the petition, Chandel submits that this provision is
in contravention of the proviso to Section 7(5) of the RTI Act. That proviso
states:
“Provided that the
fee prescribed under sub – section (1) of section 6 and sub – sections (1) and
(5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the
persons who are below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate
Government.”
The petition states that the “exorbitant fees” will deter
citizens who are not below poverty line, but cannot afford the fees, from
seeking information. Moreover, the petition states that the fees prescribed in
the Rules is 10-50 times more than what is asked for by the Supreme Court, and
the Central and State governments.
However, that is not the only gripe the petitioner has.
The Rules require the application to be accompanied by a photograph of the
applicant and requires him to disclose his age and occupation. And this
requirement, the petition states, is contrary to Section 6(2) of the RTI Act,
which states,
“An applicant making request for information shall not be
required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other
personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.”
Further, the petition states that Rule 5(1) of the Rules
2006 “circumvents the obligation cast by Section 6(3) of the 2005 Act on
authorities to transfer appropriate applications”. Under this Rule, if the
information sought for does not fall under the jurisdiction of the authority, it
is not required for the authority to transfer the application. This in effect
will render the initial application fruitless, and the applicant will have to
start all over again.
Other grounds for challenging the legislation include the
fact that the applicant can only peruse records for two hours. Rule 9(1)
states:
“If the application is allowed, no inspection fee shall
be charged for first sixty minutes but thereafter the applicant shall submit
fee amounting Rs. 25/- for every additional 15 minutes… In no case such
inspection shall continue for more than two hours in all.”
The petition also contends that the 2006 Rules,
“goes on to make Rajasthan High Court Rules 1952, General
Rules (Civil) 1986 & General Rules (Criminal) 1980 to prevail over the Act
2005; effectively meaning repealing of the Act 2005”.
Among his prayers, the petitioner has sought a writ from
the High Court to deem Rules 4, 5(1), 5(5)(ii), 7, 9, 10(1)(vi) and 10(2)(iii)
of the 2006 Rules as unconstitutional and/or ultra-vires the Right to
Information Act 2005.
He has also prayed that the High Court make new Rules on
the lines of the RTI Act. Lastly, he has sought directions to equip the
judiciary in the state to receive applications and fees under the Act 2005
through the internet, as contemplated by Rule 11 of the 2006 Rules.
On Monday, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and JK Ranka
issued notice in the petition. It will be interesting to see what the Rajasthan
High Court eventually decides. The Supreme Court in recent judgments has
lamented the manner in which public authorities deal with RTI queries. Just
last week, it held that public service commissions fall under the ambit of the
RTI Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
