Common Cause vs High Court of Allahabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 583

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT
Common Cause – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Allahabad – Respondent

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

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 re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 583

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALITCommon Cause – AppellantVersusHigh Court of Allahabad – Respondent

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT
Common Cause – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Allahabad – Respondent