Summary
The Supreme Court held that third parties seeking judicial records or certified copies from the Gujarat High Court must follow its copying rules rather than invoke the RTI Act. Rule 151’s requirement of an affidavit explaining the request was held compatible with the Act. Section 22 overrides inconsistent laws but does not repeal a compatible mechanism for access. The High Court judgment setting aside the Information Commissioner’s direction was affirmed.
Issues
- Whether Gujarat High Court Rule 151 conflicted with the RTI Act by requiring third parties to state reasons.
- Whether RTI could be used to bypass the High Court’s judicial-record copying procedure.
Provisions considered
- Rule 151, Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993Requires an affidavit stating grounds for third-party copying requests, subject to its specified governmental exception and the Assistant Registrar’s order. (¶¶ 21, 22, 27, 38, 43)
Held
- Rule 151 provides a mechanism for obtaining judicial records rather than prohibiting disclosure. Its affidavit, reasons and fee requirements were not inconsistent with the RTI Act. (¶¶ 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 38, 43)
- Section 22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect only where inconsistency exists; its non-obstante clause does not impliedly repeal compatible High Court copying rules. The Act’s repeal provision expressly repealed the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43)
- Information and certified copies on the judicial side must be accessed through the High Court Rules. Resort to RTI, including the proposed third-party consultation route, was not justified to replace that effective mechanism. (¶¶ 25, 27, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43)
- The judgment distinguished administrative-side information, access to which remains governed by the applicable High Court and RTI rules; it did not hold the High Court generally outside the RTI regime. (¶¶ 20, 24, 25)
Result
Appeals dismissed; Gujarat High Court judgment dated 13 March 2014 setting aside the Information Commissioner’s direction affirmed.