Rule 151 upheld: third parties must use affidavit and fee to obtain certified copies; RTI cannot bypass rules

SC dismissed the appeal, holding that Gujarat High Court Rules (esp. Rule 151) requiring third parties to file an application with affidavit and court fee to obtain certified copies are not inconsistent with the RTI Act. Where an effective, simple mechanism exists under court rules to access judicial records, applicants must follow that procedure; the RTI Act cannot be invoked to bypass those rules absent inherent inconsistency. The Court emphasized protection of litigants' personal information and conservation of judicial resources, and declined to permit certified copies via RTI in such cases.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inconsistency between Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Applicability of the RTI Act for obtaining certified copies/information when High Court Rules provide an alternative mechanism.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Inconsistency between Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005

Background:
- An RTI application was filed seeking certified copies of certain documents from the Gujarat High Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) directed the applicant to follow the Gujarat High Court Rules, which require an affidavit stating the grounds for seeking such copies.
- The applicant's appeals to the Appellate Authority and the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) were dismissed, leading to further appeals and the involvement of the Supreme Court.

Legal Arguments:
- Appellant's Argument: The RTI Act, specifically Section 6(2), does not require applicants to provide reasons for seeking information, which conflicts with Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules that mandates an affidavit stating the grounds for the request. Section 22 of the RTI Act provides an overriding effect over any other law.
- Respondent's Argument: The Gujarat High Court Rules are not inconsistent with the RTI Act. They merely provide a procedural requirement for third parties to obtain certified copies, ensuring that information is sought for bona fide reasons.

Supreme Court's Analysis:
- The Court examined the definitions and scope of "information" and "public authority" under the RTI Act.
- It noted that the High Court Rules are framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and provide a specific mechanism for obtaining certified copies.
- The Court observed that the Rules do not deny information but require an affidavit to ensure the request is bona fide.
- The Court emphasized the need to balance transparency with the protection of sensitive information and the efficient functioning of public authorities.

Conclusion:
- Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules is not inconsistent with the RTI Act. It merely lays down a different procedure for obtaining certified copies, which is not inherently contradictory to the RTI Act's provisions.

Issue 2: Applicability of the RTI Act for obtaining certified copies/information when High Court Rules provide an alternative mechanism

Background:
- The High Court Rules provide a mechanism for parties and third parties to obtain certified copies of documents and judgments by filing an application with requisite fees and an affidavit.
- The issue was whether the RTI Act could be invoked when the High Court Rules already provide a mechanism for obtaining such information.

Legal Arguments:
- Appellant's Argument: The RTI Act should prevail over the High Court Rules due to its overriding effect as per Section 22, which aims to promote transparency and accountability.
- Respondent's Argument: The High Court Rules provide an effective and simple procedure for obtaining information, and the RTI Act should not be used to duplicate or bypass this established mechanism.

Supreme Court's Analysis:
- The Court referred to previous judgments, including those of the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court, which held that if information can be accessed through another statutory mechanism, the RTI Act should not be resorted to.
- The Court noted that the High Court Rules ensure that third parties can obtain information by following a simple procedure, which includes filing an application/affidavit.
- The Court emphasized that the RTI Act's objective is to harmonize transparency with other public interests, including the efficient functioning of public authorities and the preservation of confidentiality.

Conclusion:
- The provisions of the RTI Act should not be invoked when the High Court Rules provide an effective mechanism for obtaining information. The RTI Act does not imply an implied repeal of the High Court Rules but has an overriding effect only in case of inconsistency.

Summary of Conclusion:
1. Inconsistency: Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, requiring an affidavit for third parties seeking certified copies, is not inconsistent with the RTI Act. It ensures that information requests are bona fide without obstructing access to information.
2. Applicability: The RTI Act should not be resorted to when the High Court Rules provide a specific mechanism for obtaining information. The established procedure under the High Court Rules is effective and aligns with the objectives of the RTI Act.

Final Judgment:
- The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's order, dismissing the appeals and affirming that the High Court Rules' mechanism for obtaining certified copies should be followed. The Court acknowledged the valuable assistance provided by the amicus curiae.

---