2019 (12) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies access to court records under Right to Information Act, upholding Delhi District Courts Rules

Public Information Officer Versus Mr. S.P. Goyal

The court held that under the Right to Information Act, a party to a case pending in court cannot seek copies of documents forming part of the court ... Right to seek information - Raid - whether a party to a case pending in a court can seek copies of documents which form part of the court record under the Right to Information Act, 2005? - interpretation of statute - prevailing of Delhi District Court rules over RTI Act. HELD THAT:- In view of Rule 7 (iv), (v) and (vi) of Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, there is exemption from disclosure of information which pertains to judicial proceedings or judicial functions of the court. The application of the respondent seeking a copy of a document which forms part of the judicial record would clearly be exempted from Rule 7 of the aforenoted Rules. In fact the said court where the suit of the respondent is pending has by a judicial order declined to provide the said document to the petitioner. The Delhi District Court rules will prevail - Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether a party to a case pending in a court can seek copies of documents which form part of the court record under the Right to Information Act, 2005.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Right to Information Act vs. Judicial Proceedings:The central issue in this writ petition is whether a party to a case pending in court can seek copies of documents that form part of the court record under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent's grievance centers around a dispute involving an alleged illegal raid by the Income Tax Department, based on information provided by his brother. The respondent filed a civil suit for damages, which was later transferred to the Delhi High Court and subsequently to the District Court due to jurisdictional changes.2. Application for Summoning Documents:While the suit was pending, the respondent filed an application summoning the satisfaction folder from the Income Tax Department, which was allowed by the court. However, when the records were produced, the identity of the informant was redacted. The respondent did not cross-examine the witness from the Income Tax Department.3. RTI Application and CIC Order:Subsequently, the respondent filed an RTI application seeking copies of the satisfaction folder. The CPIO declined the information, citing that it related to judicial proceedings and amounted to seeking opinion or advice. The CIC, however, directed that the copy of the satisfaction folder be furnished to the respondent, noting that the informant's identity had been redacted and no other part of the folder was exempt from disclosure.4. Judicial Order and Appeal:The trial court, dealing with an application under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, declined to provide a copy of the satisfaction note to the respondent, stating that the document could be reviewed by the court but not given to the plaintiff or made public. The respondent did not challenge this order in a higher forum but instead pressed the RTI application.5. Legal Precedents and Rules:The petitioner argued that the CIC failed to appreciate that the satisfaction folder is part of judicial proceedings and cannot be provided under the RTI Act. Reliance was placed on Rule 7 of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, which exempts information related to judicial proceedings. The petitioner also cited a judgment from a Coordinate Bench, which held that the RTI Act does not override laws ensuring access to information and that judicial functions are separate from administrative functions.6. Judicial Functions and RTI Act:The court emphasized that judicial functions are independent of administrative functions and that the RTI Act cannot be used to obtain information related to judicial proceedings. The Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, specifically exempt information related to judicial work, decisions of judicial bodies, and judicial proceedings.Conclusion:The court concluded that the impugned order by the CIC failed to consider the correct legal position and set aside the order. The writ petition was allowed, reinforcing that the respondent's application for a copy of the satisfaction folder is exempt under the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, and the RTI Act cannot be used to obtain such judicial documents.