Bar & Bench: New Delhi: Tuesday, May 23, 2017.
The final
year post-graduate students of Azim Premji University, Bangalore have come out
with a report on RTI compliance by nine High Courts in the country, titled the
Legal System Reforms Project (LSRP).
The report
revealed that the Punjab & Haryana High Court was the most RTI-compliant,
while the Allahabad High Court was on the opposite end of the spectrum.
The selection
of the High Courts itself revealed some unwelcome facts. Though there is no
restriction on the method of applying for information under the RTI Act, many
High Courts had specific Rules mandating the submission of the application in
person. To quote from the study,
“Our initial
plan was to use a randomised sample, picking our sample High courts for
different sizes from different geographical locations. We soon realised however
that such an approach would fail, since not all High Courts allowed the filing
of applications by post or email. For example, the Tripura High Court rules
specifically provides that applications must be submitted “in person” during
the working hours of the court.
Similarly,
the Orissa High Court rules provide that the RTI application form must be
obtained under “oath”. We filed a “test” application in Patna High Court, to
see whether these rules were applied in practice. The high court responded to
our application, asking us to fill the fees in the accounts counter of the High
Court and then submit an application, in person, to the PIO during the working
hours of the court.”
The study
thus came to be confined to nine High Courts which provided information by
post. They are Punjab & Haryana High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court,
Bombay High Court, Delhi High Court, Calcutta High Court, Kerala High Court,
Karnataka High Court, Madras High Court and Allahabad High Court.
Based on the
RTI responses to a common questionnaire, the study made the following
conclusions:
Finding 1: In
general, High Courts are non-compliant with the Right to Information Act, 2005.
A
quantitative measure, Court Transparency Index (CTI), was developed in order to
compare the responses of different High Courts.
The report
states:
“Our study
confirmed the hypothesis that High Courts perform poorly in terms of
implementing the RTI act. Most High Courts performed poorly on the CTI scale
with the median of CTI of all nine High courts at 64 out of a possible 100
points.”
The Punjab
& Haryana High Court had the highest CTI, scoring 75 out of 100, while the
Allahabad High Court came in last with a CTI score of 52. This score was
arrived at taking into account five parameters: Rules, Disclosure, Decisions,
Practice and Speed.
Rank High Court CTI
score
1 Punjab & Haryana 75
2 Himachal Pradesh 69
3 Bombay 68
4 Delhi 64
4 Calcutta 64
6 Kerala 62
7 Karnataka 57
8 Madras 53.5
9 Allahabad 52
Some of the
other findings by the Project are as follows:
Finding 2.
The compliance with the RTI Act, 2005 increases with RTI workload.
Finding 3.
High Courts reject a high number of RTI applications – mostly for reasons
outside the RTI Act.
Finding 4. Most
High Courts notify RTI rules which frustrate the purpose of the RTI act.
“Section 28
of the RTI act allows competent authorities to make rules regarding fees and
“any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed”. These rules
however should be made “to carry out the provisions of this Act”. In many
cases, High Courts use these provisions to make rules which are either directly
ultra vires the provisions of the act or indirectly create restrictions which
frustrate the purpose of the act.”
Finding 10:
High Courts typically take around 3 weeks to reply to a RTI application.
.JPG)
.JPG)
