Bar & Bench: New Delhi: Thursday, 05 March 2020.
The
Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Right to Information (RTI) Act would
not apply when it comes to third party access to court documents/information on
the judicial side (Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat and
anr).
Given
the personal nature of such documents, the Bench of Justices R Banumathi, AS
Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy held that judicial information cannot be obtained by
third parties as a matter of right.
“So
far as the third parties are concerned, as of right, they are not entitled to
access the information/obtain the certified copies of documents, orders and
other proceedings.”
Supreme
Court
Court
documents, information on the judicial side cannot be obtained by third parties
under RTI Act: Supreme Court
The
Court explained,
“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.”
Supreme
Court
The
Court further pointed out that it is not as if access to such information is
completely denied to third parties. There are procedures framed by respective
High Courts for the provision of certified copies of such documents. In the
case at hand, the rules of the Gujarat High Court assumed focus.
These
High Court rules allowed for the grant of such information to third parties,
upon application and payment of prescribed fees and upon the applicant showing
that s/he has bonafide reasons for wanting to access such information. The
Court said,
“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.”
While
this is the case, the Court further commented,
“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.”
Supreme
Court
From
this perspective, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no inconsistency
between the provisions of the Gujarat High Court rules on the issue and the RTI
Act. Therefore, there was no requirement to invoke overriding effect of the RTI
Act under Section 22 either.
Factual
Background
The
case before the Supreme Court had its genesis in an RTI application filed back
in 2010 to access certified copies of court documents pertaining to two cases.
The applicant was a third party to both cases.
The
dispute cropped up after the applicant was told that he would have to apply for
the documents sought for under the Gujarat High Court rules. Successive
challenges to the High Court’s refusal to grant these documents under the RTI
eventually culminated in the Chief Information Commissioner ruling in the
applicant’s favour.
However,
a Division Bench of the High Court eventually set aside the Commissioner’s
decision, 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.
This
High Court ruling prompted an appeal before the Supreme Court, which asked
Additional Solicitor General Atmaram NS Nadkarni to appear as amicus curiae.
Judicial
vs Administrative information: What Supreme Court held
The
Supreme Court eventually pointed out that the information possessed by Courts
can broadly be divided into two categories, i.e.:
Judicial
Information
- 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;
- orders and judgments passed by the High Court, notes of proceedings, etc.;
- 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
Administrative
Information
- 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.
- Correspondence by the High Court with the Supreme Court, Government and with the district judiciary, etc.; and 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.
The
Court proceeded to rule that when it comes to administrative side documents,
one can have access to the same under the rules framed by various High Courts
or under the RTI Act. Notably, the Bench also pointed out,
“Insofar
as the disclosure of information as to the assets of the Judges held by the
Chief Justice of the High Court, the same is now covered by the judgment of the
Constitution Bench reported in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra
Agrawal.”
However,
information on the judicial side can only be accessed in terms of the High
Court’s Rules, in view of the personal nature of such information. The Bench
also remarked,
“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.”
High
Court rules safeguarding personal information thus would also be in line with
Section 8 of the RTI Act, the Bench observed.This provision preserves
confidentiality when it comes to certain categories of information.
Pertinently, Section 8(j) prohibits disclosure of personal information unless
there is an element of public interest involved.
It
was also opined that once the High Court has provided for a mechanism to access
the information 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.”
This
position was also supported by the Delhi High Court judgment in The Registrar
Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra and the Karnataka High Court in State
Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar (Establishment) v. Karnataka
Information Commission. Concurring with these rulings as well, the Supreme
Court has concluded,
“The
information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side [should] be
obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules; the
provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.”
Supreme
Court
Consequently,
the Gujarat High Court's judgment on the issue was affirmed. The appeals
challenging the same were dismissed.
.JPG)
.JPG)
