RTI Act cannot override tribunal disclosure rules for judicial records or release information expressly barred from disclosure.

The RTI Act, 2005 cannot be used to compel disclosure of judicial records where the tribunal's own statutory regime under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rules governs disclosure; the proper remedy lies under that special law. Section 4(1)(d) was held confined to administrative and quasi-judicial decisions, not judicial proceedings, and section 22 does not override special disclosure provisions or tribunal rules. Information expressly barred from publication or disclosure by a tribunal is also protected from release under the RTI Act under section 8(1)(b). If no actual prohibitory order existed, the matter was to be reconsidered under the relevant statutory framework by a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be used to compel disclosure of information that a tribunal has refused to disclose under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and its rules; (ii) whether the Act applies to judicial proceedings and overrides the existing law governing disclosure in such proceedings; (iii) whether information expressly prohibited from disclosure by the tribunal can nonetheless be furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (i): Whether the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be used to compel disclosure of information that a tribunal has refused to disclose under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and its rules.

Analysis: The disclosure of records arising out of a judicial proceeding was held to lie within the jurisdiction of the tribunal itself when the governing law and rules vest that function in the tribunal. The Commission held that the RTI regime is not meant to displace the tribunal's own statutory discretion regarding disclosure of judicial records, and that the requester must pursue the remedy available under the law governing the tribunal.

Conclusion: The request could not be enforced through the RTI Act in place of the tribunal's own disclosure regime; the proper remedy lay elsewhere.

Issue (ii): Whether the Act applies to judicial proceedings and overrides the existing law governing disclosure in such proceedings.

Analysis: The Commission held that section 4(1)(d) is confined to administrative and quasi-judicial decisions and does not govern judicial proceedings. It further held that section 22 does not effect a repeal or substitution of pre-existing special laws or tribunal rules governing dissemination of information, and that the RTI Act does not create a parallel mechanism to regulate judicial proceedings or impair judicial independence.

Conclusion: The RTI Act does not override the existing law governing disclosure in judicial proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether information expressly prohibited from disclosure by the tribunal can nonetheless be furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The Commission held that where a judicial authority has expressly forbidden publication or disclosure of information, section 8(1)(b) protects such information from disclosure under the RTI Act. It also directed that if there was no judicial order actually forbidding disclosure, the first appellate authority must consider the matter under the Income-tax Act read with the RTI Act and decide it by a speaking order.

Conclusion: Information expressly barred from disclosure by the tribunal could not be obtained under the RTI Act.

Final Conclusion: The Commission declined to treat the RTI Act as a vehicle for overriding the tribunal's own judicial control over disclosure, and the matter was sent back for reconsideration on the limited question whether a tribunal order on disclosure existed and what remedy followed from it.

Ratio Decidendi: The RTI Act does not override a special statutory regime governing disclosure in judicial proceedings, and information expressly forbidden by a court or tribunal cannot be obtained through the RTI mechanism.

---