Back
Rules RTI Applicant Cannot Be Accompanied by Third Parties During Document Inspection
Introduction
In a ruling that has sparked debate over the scope of the , the quashed the dismissal of an RTI appeal but imposed a significant restriction: the information seeker cannot be accompanied by any third party during the inspection of public documents. Justice Nirzar S. Desai held that permitting another person to accompany the applicant would effectively amount to providing information to a third party, undermining the object of the .
The Case: A Dispute Over Inspection
The petitioner, Vala Jodhubhai Golanbhai, a 74-year-old resident of Nagadla, sought information from the under the RTI Act. To cull out the desired information from bulky records, he was required to inspect the documents. However, when he visited the Panchayat office with six to seven persons and insisted that the Talati-cum-Mantri show the records to all, a confrontation ensued. The lady official refused, and the petitioner’s group allegedly misbehaved and threatened her. The appellate authority dismissed his second appeal citing this misconduct.
The Undertaking and the Court’s Concern
Before the High Court, the petitioner tendered an , promising to behave cordially, not carry electronic devices, and not cause disturbance. However, he also sought permission to be accompanied by one person conversant with the language of the documents, as he was not well-versed in the language. The respondent opposed this, arguing that it would effectively provide information to a third party.
Justice Desai found merit in the respondent’s objection, stating:
“permitting another person to accompany him during the inspection would, in effect, amount to providing the information to a third party.”
The Court further observed:
“This gives rise to a impression that the petitioner is merely acting as a pawn for such third party, which is not the object or purpose of the Act.”
The Decision: Quashed but Conditioned
Despite these concerns, the High Court quashed the dated , noting the petitioner’s assurance of good conduct. However, it clarified that the petitioner shall be permitted to inspect the records only if he himself undertakes the inspection and does not insist upon any other person accompanying him . The respondent was directed to allow inspection within one month, after which photocopies of specifically requested documents would be provided upon payment of charges.
Critical Analysis: A Restriction Without Statutory Backing?
Legal commentators have questioned the Court’s reasoning, arguing that the restriction has no basis in the RTI Act. The Act only exempts information under , none of which bar third-party assistance during inspection. Critics contend that the , rooted in , cannot be curtailed by . They note that the petitioner, who is not conversant with the language, would be unable to meaningfully exercise his right without aid.
Conclusion
The ’s judgment attempts to balance the petitioner’s with the need to prevent misuse. By quashing the dismissal, it ensures access to records, but the prohibition on third-party accompaniment may render that access illusory for those who require linguistic assistance. The ruling has opened a fresh debate on whether such restrictions align with the spirit of transparency and accountability that the RTI Act seeks to foster.
