TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, requiring a third party seeking certified copies to file an affidavit stating the reasons for the request, is inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005. (ii) Whether, where certified copies or information are available under the High Court Rules, the Right to Information Act, 2005 can still be invoked for the same judicial-side material.
Issue (i): Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, requiring a third party seeking certified copies to file an affidavit stating the reasons for the request, is inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Analysis: The right to information under the Act includes access to records and certified copies, but it is subject to the statutory exemptions and to procedures validly prescribed by law. The High Court Rules, framed under the Constitution, regulate the manner in which judicial-side copies are furnished. Rule 151 does not prohibit disclosure to third parties; it only requires an application supported by an affidavit showing the grounds for the request. That requirement serves the legitimate purpose of ensuring bona fides and protecting sensitive judicial records, and it does not contradict the disclosure regime under the Act.
Conclusion: Rule 151 is not inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Issue (ii): Whether, where certified copies or information are available under the High Court Rules, the Right to Information Act, 2005 can still be invoked for the same judicial-side material.
Analysis: The Act was enacted to promote transparency, but not to multiply modes of access where an effective mechanism already exists under valid court rules. For judicial-side records, the High Court Rules provide the operative procedure for parties and third parties alike. Since the Rules are not repugnant to the Act, the non-obstante clause in Section 22 does not displace them. The Act is therefore not the default route for obtaining judicial-side certified copies where the High Court Rules already govern access.
Conclusion: The Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be resorted to for judicial-side certified copies or information where the High Court Rules provide a valid mechanism.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's view that judicial-side certified copies must be obtained under the High Court Rules, not through the Right to Information Act, was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where valid High Court Rules provide a non-conflicting mechanism for access to judicial-side records, Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not override those rules, and the Act cannot be used to bypass the prescribed procedure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
