Regulations cannot impose restrictions that conflict with statutory provisions, rendering such rules ultra vires.

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner is challenging Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter the ‘Kerala RTI Rules’) to the extent it prescribes that the free supply of materials to persons below the poverty line shall be restricted to 20 pages only, as it is violative of the parent Act, the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘the RTI Act’).

2. The petitioner, who is an RTI activist and an active member of Bodhi Vivaravakasa Samrakshana Sena, belongs to the below-the- poverty-line category and submitted an application under the RTI Act seeking information from the Co-operative Society Registrar regarding audit reports and other details of Puthenvelikkara Service Co-operative Bank and Elanthikkara Women Co-operative Sangham. In response, Ext. P2 letter dated 25.10.2023 was issued, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.30/- for copies under RTI. It is specified in the letter that, as per Rule 4(4) of the Kerala RTI Rules, no fee shall be charged from persons below the poverty line, provided that the free supply of material shall be restricted to 20 pages only. The petitioner submits that, under Rule 7(5) of the RTI Act, it is prescribed that no fee shall be charged from persons below the poverty line.Section 27of the RTI Act deals with the rule- making power of the appropriate government, under which (2)(c) specifically empowers the government to make rules regarding the fee payable under subsections 1 and 5 ofSection 7. Under this authority, Kerala RTI Rules, 2006, were enacted, and subsequently, through Ext. P3 notification amended in 2015, a proviso was inserted in Rule 4(4) stating that the free supply of materials under Rule 4(1)(a) to BPL persons shall be restricted to 20 pages only.

3. The petitioner further argues that delegated legislation must be consistent with the parent Act and must not exceed the powers granted under that Act. The rule-making authority must exercise its powers for the purpose for which they are granted. Provisions of delegated legislation will be ultra vires if they are contrary to the parent Act or exceed the authority granted by it. The petitioner states that Rule

4(4) supplants section 7(5) of the RTI Act and must be in accordance with that section. Relying on General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Anr v. Dr Subhash Chandra Yadav and Another ( 1988 (2) SCC 351 ), the petitioner contends that a rule can only have the effect of a statutory provision if it conforms to the statute under which it is framed and falls within the scope and power of the rule-making authority.

4. Further, the petitioner refers to the Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration v. Sri Ram ( 2000 (5) SCC 451 ), State of T.N. and Another v. P. Krishnamurthy and Others ( 2006 (4) SCC 517 ), and St. John’s Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, and Another (2003 (3) SCC 321), to support the principle that granting rule-making power by an Act does not enable the authority to create rules beyond the scope of the enabling Act or incompatible with it. Statutory bodies cannot enlarge the powers beyond the scope intended by the legislature, as held in Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another ( 1975 (1) SCC 421 ).

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, the State of Kerala states that the government introduced a proviso to Rule 4(4) through Ext. P3 amendment based on the Kerala State Information Commission’s opinion that some applicants submit applications under Section 6(1) of the RTI to determine the availability of information and costs involved, then engage pe