Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 583

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Common Cause - Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Allahabad & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 194 of 2012 With T.C.(C) No. 129 of 2013, W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2014, T.C.(C) No. 32 of 2014, W.P.(C) No. 40 of 2016, W.P.(C) No. 205 of 2016 & SLP(C) No. 30659 of 2017
Decided On : 20-03-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Neha Rathi, Mr. Paranal, Mr. Sunil Kishore Ahya, Petitioner-in-person, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R., Mr. Rahat Bansal, Mr. Amit A. Pai, Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Ms. Runa Bhuyan, Mr. Adeel Ahmed, Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. Avnish M. Oza, Mr. Chirag Jain, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Ms. Tulika Chikker, Mr. Rahul Mishra, Mr. P.H. Parekh, Mr. Kshatrashal Raj, Ms. Ritika Sethi, Mr. Vishal Prasad, Ms. Tanya Choudhary, Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Ms. Pratyusha Priyardshini, Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, Mr. Utkarsh Dixit, Mr. Anwesha Padhi, M/S. Parekh & Co., Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair, Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, Mr. Amit Sharma, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Mr. Shashank Mishra, Mr. P.S. Chandralekha, Mr. P. I. Jose, Mr. P.N. Mishra, Ms. Alka Sinha, Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. K.R. Chitra

Compliance with the mandate of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the reasonableness of charges for seeking information.

Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Rules - Summary: The court addressed challenges to the Rules framed under Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It ruled on the reasonableness of application fees and per page charges, the requirement to disclose motive for seeking information, the permission for disclosure of exempted information, and the transfer of applications to other public authorities. The court emphasized compliance with the Act's mandate and directed revisiting of rules not in line with its observations.
Fact of the Case:

The court addressed challenges to the Rules framed under Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, including the reasonableness of application fees and per page charges, the requirement to disclose motive for seeking information, the permission for disclosure of exempted information, and the transfer of applications to other public authorities.
Finding of the Court:

The court ruled that the application fee should not exceed Rs.50/- and per page information charges should not exceed Rs.5/-. It held that no motive needs to be disclosed for seeking information, clarified the requirement for permission to disclose exempted information, and emphasized compliance with the Act's mandate for transferring applications to other public authorities.
Issues: Challenges to the reasonableness of application fees and per page charges, the requirement to disclose motive for seeking information, the permission for disclosure of exempted information, and the transfer of applications to other public authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized compliance with the mandate of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and directed revisiting of rules not in line with its observations.
Final Decision: The writ petitions and transfer cases were disposed of in accordance with the court's rulings.

ORDER :

W.P.(C) No.194 of 2012, W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2014, W.P.(C) No. 40 of 2016 & W.P.(C) No. 205 of 2016 :

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in these set of writ petitions is to the Rules framed under Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the Act”).

2. First objection of the petitioners is that the charges for the application fee and per page charges for the information supplied should be reasonable.

3. We are of the view that, as a normal Rule, the charge for the application should not be more than Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be more than Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt with differently. This will not debar revision in future, if situation so demands.

4. Second objection is against requiring of disclosure of motive for seeking the information. No motive needs to be disclosed in view of the scheme of the Act.

5. Third objection is to the requirement, in the Allahabad High Court Rules, for permission of the Chief Justice or the Judge concerned to the disclosure of information. We make it clear that the said requirement will be only in respect of information which is exempted under the scheme of the Act.

6. As regards the objection that under Section 6(3) of the Act, the public authority has to transfer the application to another public authority if information is not available, the said provision should also normally be complied with except where the public authority dealing with the application is not aware as to which other authority will be the appropriate authority.

7. As regards Rules 25 to 27 of the Allahabad High Court Rules which debar giving of information with regard to the matters pending adjudication, it is clarified that the same may be read consistent with Section 8 of the Act, more particularly sub-section (1) in Clause (J) thereof.

8. Wherever rules do not comply with the above observations, the same be revisited as our observations are based on mandate of the Act which must be complied with.

9. The writ petitions are disposed of in above terms.

SLP(C) No. 30659/2017 :

10. In view of order passed in W.P.(C) No.194 of 2012, the special leave petition is disposed of.

11. The award of cost imposed by the High Court is set aside.

T.C.(C) No. 129/2013 & T.C.(C) No. 32/2014

12. In view of order passed in W.P.(C) No.194 of 2012, the transfer cases are disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document