R.S. Misra v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India

1. This appeal impugns the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 3530/2011 dated 21.11.2017, setting aside the decision of the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) dated 11.05.2011. The latter had directed the Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’), Supreme Court of India to furnish some information to the appellant.

2. The issue pertaining to the right of a third party to apply for certified copies to be obtained from the High Court by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act without resorting to the High Court Rules was considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat And Anr., (2020) 4 SCC 702. It held as under: “...

2. The brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows: an RTI application dated 5-4-2010 was filed by Respondent 2 seeking information pertaining to the following cases — Civil Application No. 5517 of 2003 and Civil Application No. 8072 of 1989 along with all relevant documents and certified copies. In reply, by Letter dated 29- 4-2010, the Public Information Officer, Gujarat High Court informed Respondent 2 that for obtaining required copies, he should make an application personally or through his advocate on affixing court fees stamp of Rs 3 with requisite fee to the “Deputy Registrar”. It was further stated that as Respondent 2 is not a party to the said proceedings, as per Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, his application should be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which the certified copies are required and on making such application, he will be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993....

6. Being aggrieved by the interim order, Respondent 1 High Court preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 before the Division Bench contending that the party who seeks certified copies has to make an application along with the copying charges and requisite court fees stamp as per Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules. As per the Rules, if the certified copy is sought by a person who is not a party to the litigation, his application has to be accompanied by an affidavit stating therein the purpose for which he requires the certified copies. Vide the impugned order, the High Court allowed [High Court of Gujarat v. Chief Information Commr., 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 16013] the letters patent appeal holding that when a particular field is governed by the rules which are not declared ultra vires, then there is no question of applying the fresh rules and make the situation confusing. The High Court held that in the light of the High Court Rules, certified copies may be given on payment of charges as per the Rules and also the applicant (Respondent 2) has to file an affidavit disclosing the purpose for which the certified copies are required and there is no question of making an application under the RTI Act. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Chief Information Commissioner by observing that when a copy is demanded by any person, the same has to be in accordance with the Rules of the High Court on the subject....

30. While examining the issue of where two mechanisms exist for obtaining the information i.e. the Supreme Court Rules and the RTI Act, in Supreme Court of India v. R.S. Misra [Supreme Court of India v. R.S. Misra, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811: (2017) 244 DLT 179], the Delhi High Court held that (SCC OnLine Del para 51) “once any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to.” In Supreme Court of India v. R.S. Misra [Supreme Court of India v. R.S. Misra, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811: (2017) 244 DLT 179], the Delhi High Court held as under: (SCC OnLine Del paras 53-57) “53. The Preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizens the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.

54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of the RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency.

55. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act reveals that the said Act is concerned only with that information, which is under the exclusive control of the “public authority”. Providing copies/certified copies is not separate from providing information. The SCR not only deal with providing “certified copies” of judicial records but also deal with providing “not a certified copy” or simply a “copy” of the document. The certification of the records is done by the Assistant Registrar/Branch Officer or any officer on behalf of the Registrar. In the opinion of this Court, in case of a statute which contemplates dissemination of information as provided for by the Explanation to Section 4 of the RTI Act then in such situation, public will have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain such information.

56. There are other provisions of the RTI Act which support the said position, namely, Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) which contemplate that if an information is disseminated then the public will have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. In the present case, the dissemination of information under the provisions of the SCR squarely fits into the definition of “disseminated” as provided in the aforesaid Explanation to Section 7(9) and the Preamble contemplate a bar for providing information if it “disproportionally diverts the resources of the public authority”.

57. Section 4(2) also provides that it shall be constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of sub-section (1) thereof and to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications including intervals so that the public has minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information.” (emphasis supplied) The same view was taken up by the Karnataka High Court in State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar (Establishment) v. Karnataka Information Commission [State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar (Establishment) v. Karnataka Information Commission, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2908] dated 9-1-2019.

31. We fully endorse the above views [Supreme Court of India v. R.S. Misra, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811: (2017) 244 DLT 179] of the Delhi High Court. When the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing an application/affidavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted to....”

3. The said judgment was followed by the Division Bench of this court dated 19.05.2022 in W.P.(C) 6270/2021 titled Akriti Aggarwal and Ors v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, which held inter-alia as under: “...

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and we are of the view that in the light of the latter judgment of the Supreme Court in the case titled as Chief Information Commissioner (supra), which is also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court and by which we are bound, the petitioner cannot claim the right to seek the copies of the answer scripts by relying upon the Rules framed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the fee structure thereunder. In Chief Information Commissioner (supra), the Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as under:- “30. While examining the issue of where two mechanisms exist…”

7. In view of the aforesaid position, it is impermissible for the petitioner to insist that the mechanism/fee under the RTI should apply in derogation of the procedure/fees prescribed by the Respondent University for obtaining copies of answer scripts. …”

4. From the above, it is clear that no separate system can be created for making available information as was directed by the CIC. The Supreme Court Rules prescribed for obtaining the information have to be followed.

5. There is no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge.