Right to Information disclosure prevails over alternative certified-copy procedures when no statutory exemption applies.

Information held by a public authority cannot be denied merely because certified copies are available under another statutory procedure. The term "held" in the Right to Information Act was read in its ordinary sense as information in possession, not as a basis for withholding disclosure. Section 22 gives the Act overriding effect, so a separate copying or certified-copy mechanism does not displace the right to seek information under the Act. In the absence of a specific exemption or court order restricting disclosure, the authority must furnish the requested information.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether information held by a public authority could be denied on the ground that certified copies were obtainable through another statutory procedure; (ii) whether the existence of a separate copying or certified-copy mechanism could override disclosure under the Right to Information Act.

Issue (i): whether information held by a public authority could be denied on the ground that certified copies were obtainable through another statutory procedure.

Analysis: The expression "held" in Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act was construed in its ordinary sense as meaning in possession of, and not as "withholding" or "not giving". The availability of certified copies under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act did not by itself justify refusal of information. In the absence of any specific order of a court forbidding disclosure or any exemption under the Right to Information Act, the public authority could not refuse access on the theory that disclosure would amount to contempt or that the information was otherwise obtainable.

Conclusion: The denial on this ground was unsustainable and the information could not be refused merely because certified copies were available under another law.

Issue (ii): whether the existence of a separate copying or certified-copy mechanism could override disclosure under the Right to Information Act.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Right to Information Act gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws. The existence of another route for obtaining copies does not take away the citizen's right to choose the Right to Information Act, and the authority cannot impose a restriction not found in the statute. Since no exemption under the Act was established, the information had to be supplied.

Conclusion: The Right to Information Act prevailed, and the requested information was required to be furnished.

Final Conclusion: The refusal was set aside and the appellant was entitled to complete disclosure free of cost.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no exemption under the Right to Information Act is established, information in the possession of a public authority cannot be denied merely because an alternative statutory method exists for obtaining certified copies, and the Act overrides any inconsistent restriction in other laws.

---