Back
Kerala HC Strikes Down 20-Page RTI Fee Cap for BPL Applicants as
In a significant verdict upholding the spirit of the , the has struck down a to . The court declared the provision, which restricted free supply of information to applicants below the poverty line (BPL) to a maximum of 20 pages, as illegal and the .
Case Background The petition was filed by Nishad Shobanan, an RTI activist and member of the , himself belonging to the BPL category. The dispute arose after the petitioner sought audit reports and organizational details from the concerning the and the .
Upon application, the petitioner was issued a demand for ₹30 for copies. The authorities cited the amendment to the Kerala RTI Rules, which instituted a 20-page cap on free information for BPL applicants. Shobanan challenged this, arguing that the amendment conflicted with , which grants an unconditional exemption from fees for those below the poverty line.
Arguments Presented The petitioner contended that the rule-making power delegated to the State Government by does not permit the creation of rules that contradict the parent legislation. Relying on constitutional principles regarding , he argued that once Parliament has granted a complete fee exemption, a state-level rule cannot impose arbitrary thresholds or financial burdens on the exempted class.
The State of Kerala defended the amendment, arguing that such a cap was necessary to curb the misuse of the RTI process. They alleged that some applicants were using BPL individuals as proxies to obtain information free of cost after determining the specific costs and availability of documents. However, the , through the , maintained that the issue was specific to state-level administrative rules.
Key Observations Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. dismantled the state's reliance on administrative convenience, emphasizing that the of the RTI Act overrides local concerns regarding perceived misuse. The court noted:
" , , in clear, categorical and imperative terms, mandates that 'no fee shall be charged from the persons who are below the poverty line'. The provision is unqualified, admits of no exception, and leaves no discretion with either the rule-making authority or the information officer."
Further highlighting the limitations of , the court observed:
"The rule-making authority, under the guise of preventing alleged misuse, cannot curtail a statutory right conferred by Parliament. Administrative convenience or apprehension of abuse cannot justify the dilution of a ."
Legal Analysis and Decision The High Court applied the foundational doctrine of , noting that a delegate cannot rewrite or nullify a substantive provision of a parent statute. The court clarified that the to Rule 4(4) was not just an interpretive tool but a direct contradiction to .
By invalidating the 20-page cap, the court has reinforced that the RTI Act is a tool of empowerment specifically designed to ensure accessibility for the most vulnerable citizens. This ruling, indexed as , serves as a stern reminder to state authorities that administrative rules must function within the four corners of the legislation they are meant to support, rather than acting as barriers to the fundamental right to information.
The judgment effectively restores the unconditional exemption for BPL applicants in Kerala, ensuring that they can access public records without fear of arbitrary financial barriers.
