SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
R. V. Raveendran, J
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
writ petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vaibhav Goverdhan
For the Respondents: Kachhawaha

The increased fees for information applications under the Right to Information Act do not infringe upon constitutional rights and are within the legislative authority, emphasizing that hardship alone cannot invalidate statutes.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(e), 6(1), and 28 - Amendment of Rules pertaining to fee for submission of applications for information - Constitutional validity challenged - Enhanced fee of Rs.500/- for application and Rs.15/- per page held violative of citizens' right to information under Article 19(1)(a)- Constituent authority’s power to frame rules established. (Paras 2, 5, 9, 30, and 49)

(B) Legal principles - Right to information is essential for transparency and accountability. Any rules regarding the fee for accessing information must conform to the Act and any excessive charges infringe on fundamental rights. (Paras 1, 3.1, 19, 41)

(C) Court stressed the importance of not substituting judicial views for legislative wisdom, emphasizing deference to rule-making authority. (Paras 20, 24, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenged the constitutionality of amendments to rules that imposed a significantly higher fee for applications under the Right to Information Act, claiming it infringed upon the right to information as an extension of the freedom of speech. The petitioner alleged that the increase from Rs.10/- to Rs.500/- was unreasonable and deterred citizens from accessing information. (Paras 2, 3.1, 36)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the amendments to fees for applications under the RTI Act, ruling they were within the powers of the competent authority and did not infringe on constitutional rights. It dismissed claims of hardship caused by the new fees and noted that inconvenience alone cannot invalidate legislation. (Paras 40, 49)

Issues: Whether the increased fees under R.5 and R.6(1) of the Rules, 2011 are unconstitutional and undermine the Right to Information.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption is in favor of constitutionality for legislative enactments, and the burden lies on the challenger to prove unconstitutionality. Moreover, hardship alone cannot render a law unconstitutional. (Paras 19, 20, 41)

Result: Petition dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. right to information is essential. (Para 1 , 1)
2. petitioner challenges amendment of fee rules. (Para 2 , 3)
3. respondent defends fee amendment legally. (Para 4 , 5)
4. judicial review of statutes requires restraint. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. presumption of constitutionality protects laws. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. rules must conform to enabling statutes. (Para 17)
7. arbitrariness requires manifest proof. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. hardship alone does not invalidate laws. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. standing in public interest litigation is restricted. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
10. writ petition dismissed with costs. (Para 49)

1. R. V. Raveendran, J. in the matter of CBSE and another v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay, 2011 (8) SCC 497 : 2011 AIR SCW 4888 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 S.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 abovestated 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 R.5 and R.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 R.5 and R.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 R.5 and R.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 S.12 and sub-section (1) of S.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 S.2(e) of the Act of 2005 have been provided with the power to make rules under S.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 S.6. The Legislative Assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of power conferred under S.28 of the Act of 2005, framed Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Costs) Rules, 2011. R.5 of the Rules, 2011 prescribes fee of Rs.500/- for submission of application and R.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 fo


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top