RTI can’t bypass High Court copy rules: SC says third parties must follow affidavit route for judicial records

Case name: Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat & Anr.

Date of Order: 04 March 2020

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 1966–1967 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5840 of 2015).

Bench: R. Banumathi, J.; A.S. Bopanna, J.; Hrishikesh Roy, J. (Three-Judge Bench).

Held: A third party seeking certified copies of judicial records from a High Court cannot invoke the RTI Act to sidestep the Court’s procedural rules; where High Court Rules provide a mechanism (application with court fee and an affidavit showing reasons), that mechanism governs, and there is no inconsistency with Sections 6(2) or 22 of the RTI Act warranting RTI’s override. For information on the judicial side, copies are to be obtained under the High Court Rules; RTI may operate for administrative-side information, subject to exemptions.

Summary: The respondent, a non-party to two Gujarat High Court matters, sought “all relevant documents and certified copies” via an RTI application. The PIO directed him to the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 specifically Rules 149–154 and Rule 151 requiring third-party applicants to file an affidavit stating grounds. After the CIC ordered disclosure under RTI relying on Sections 6(2) and 22, a Division Bench of the High Court, in appeal, restored the position that judicial records must be accessed through the Court’s certified-copy mechanism. Affirming that view, the Supreme Court held that High Court and Supreme Court procedural codes legitimately require third parties to show “good cause” or file an affidavit for copies; this preserves confidentiality, prevents misuse, and harmonizes transparency with other public interests reflected in Sections 8–11 of the RTI Act. The Court clarified that Section 22’s non-obstante clause does not impliedly repeal or override Court Rules absent a clear inconsistency; here, none existed because the Rules do not deny information but channel access through a simple, established process. The Court also endorsed the principle that where another statute/rule provides an effective access mechanism for the same information, parties should not multiply routes via RTI, especially for judicial-side records held by the Court as a trustee for litigants.

Decision: Appeals dismissed; the Gujarat High Court’s order requiring third parties to obtain judicial records via the High Court Rules (with affidavit and fees) is confirmed, and the CIC’s contrary direction is set aside.