SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. R.V. Raveendran, J in the matter of CBSE & another Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 speaking for the Supreme Court pertinently observed qua right to information as under:

“The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of Right to Information Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act, which relates to securing transparency and accountability of working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”

2. Feeling deprived of above-stated right to information by enhancement/prescription of fee as Rs.500/- for submission of the application for getting information with a fee of Rs.15/- per page by amending Rule 5 and Rule 6(1) of Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Costs) Rules, 2011 as amended (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2011”), the petitioner herein acting pro bono publico has filed this writ petition calling in question the constitutional validity of Rule 5 and Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2011.

3. The essential facts, shorn of all paraphernalia to adjudicate challenge to the aforesaid constitutional validity of the Rules, 2011 are as under:

3.1 The petitioner, who is a practicing advocate and claims to be the RTI activist, showing concern with the interest of general public, has filed this petition questioning the constitutional validity of Rule 5 and Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2011. Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as “Act of 2005”) has been promulgated by the assent of the President on 15.6.2005 with an object to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizen to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. Under the said Act, the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commission have been constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 12 and sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act of 2005.

3.2. Under the Act of 2005, certain authorities have been classified as competent authority and in case of Legislative Assembly of the State, the competent authority is the Speaker. The competent authorities as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 2005 have been provided with the power to make rules under Section 28 of the Act of 2005 to carry out the provisions of the Act of 2005 for their respective institutions. The competent authority, may by notification in the official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act, including fee payable under sub-section (1) of Section 6. The Legislative Assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of power conferred under Section 28 of the Act of 2005, framed Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Costs) Rules, 2011. Rule 5 of the Rules, 2011 prescribes fee of Rs. 500/- for submission of application and Rule 6 prescribes for fee of Rs. 15/- per page for getting information under the Act of 2005. The petitioner herein has questioned the part of these rules prescribing fee for submission of application for information as well as fee for per page for getting information stating, inter alia, that the said rules are ultra vires to the provisions of the Act of 2005 and have the effect of abridging and infringing the right to information and thereby subverting the very object for which the Act of 2005 has been enacted. It has further been pleaded that the right to information has been held to be inherent to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to all citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and it has been regarded as the harbinger of change and instrument of empowerment