Common Cause Vs State Of Allahabad And Ors

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
20th MARCH 2018

JUDGES:
HON'BLE JUSTICE A.K. GOEL HON'BLE JUSTICE U.U. LALIT

PARTIES:
COMMON CAUSE (PETITIONER)
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (RESPONDENT)

SUBJECT

The following judgement deals with regards to article 32 from the Indian constitution a petition filed in the supreme court in public interest especially against a ruling passed by the Allahabad high court over its administrative conduct under RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT while violating article 19(1)aof the citizen of India

AN OVERVIEW

• The petitioner in this case has filled a writ petition against the ruling passed by the High court of Allahabad for its administrative conduct under section 28 of the RTI Act 2005 in spite of the Central Information Commission repeatedly requesting the Allahabad High Court to modify its RTI Rules, its recommendations have been ignored by the court.
• The petitioner wrote to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on 03.11.2011 however on not receiving a response he sent a reminder letter dated 13.02.2012 which led to an evasive response from the office of the High Court on16.04.2012.
• Further the petitioner claims that the High court of Allahabad RTI 2006 is ultra-virus and infringes the right of the people by withholding information from the people which then also defeats art 19(1)a as its all a chain of rights interlinked amongst itself
• Section 28 of the RTI Act, 2005 empowers the authorities to make rules to prescribe inter alia, the fees, print cost of the material tobe disseminated and other. Under section 2(e)(iii) of the RTI Act, the Chief Justice of High Court is the ‘Competent Authority’.
• Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) 2006 states a direct restriction on the no. of questions one can seek from one RTI filled making the process tedious as there is no mention of such rule in the parent Act
• The petitioner also rooted against Rule 20 of RTI of Allahabad High court which ordered that information would only be provided if one as “positive assertion” that the motive of that information is needed for proper or legal use. It indeed is an unreasonable request that stands in the way of transparency between authority and the citizen

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Allahabad Hight court RTI Act 2006 Rules

• Rules 25 to 27 -that debars access to information with regards to matters pending adjudication
• Section 8 from the Act sub section (1) (j)
• Section 28 from RTI Act 2005

ISSUES

Is there infringement of right to freedom of speech by the RTI Act 2006 provision of the citizen?

Are the Allahabad RTI Act 2006 rules not in conjunction to the Parent Act?

Is there lack of transparency between the authorities and people due to complexities created by the RTI Act 2006.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

• The writ petition is filled for the rules that are mentioned in sec 28 of RTI Act 2005 and that the RTI Act 2006 by the Allahabad court was a mere violation of it and therefore unconstitutional in nature
• There was a sincere concern regarding the charges being too high for the application fees as well as per page charged for the information given by the court under RTI Act, the court of Allahabad was charging a lumpsum of Rs. 500 for a mere reply under the Act
• the Central Information Commission (CIC) had repeatedly asked the Allahabad High Court to modify its RTI rules, but its pleas are ignored as its non-binding
• This makes gaining transparency between the system and the people very difficult and is deemed only for business class that can afford to participate and the common man is not left with much choice. As a developing nation the ratio of the rich v. the poor is vast and most of the population is either middle class or below poverty line, which makes it evident that access to this right is made keeping them in consideration.
• The application charges should be made nominal, 30 – 50 INR is something very man seeking for its rights can afford and charges per page for that information shouldn’t be more than Rs 3-5/ per page to make this a practical practice According to the government reports per captia income of an UP common man is rs-70 per day
• Another most argued subject in this case was the need to disclose the motive to sought the information under Rule 20 of the Act , which overrules the Sec6(2) of the RTI Act 2005 which does not require any reasoning to gain access to the information. That seemed a little dramatic as mentioning the motive of accessing the information would then defeat the purpose of it all together. RTI Act 2005 was made in a way to eradicate corruption and clean the system with the aid of people themselves, mentioning the reason for which the information is being sought might led to manipulative information to cover trails of the injustice within the system and as a judicial power of the land the high court of Allahabad is not setting an ideal example before the people
• While RTI rules varies in different courts across the nation, there was a study conducted by Azim Premji University in 2016-17 in nine high courts testing their implementation process of the RTI Act following their respective RTI rules regarding the same and it was found that most of these high courts did not perform very well. While the Punjab and Haryana high court resulted to perform their best, what was not surprising was the lowest performer into the charts of the test, the Allahabad High court.
• Another debateable point the petitioner brough into attention was that according to the Allahabad high court permission of the Chief Justice or the Judge concerned to the disclosure of information. This is also wrong as it’s the PIO (public information officer) duty to look whether n information can be granted to the public domain without breach of national security and if he fails in his performance, he will be facing penalty according to section 8 of the RTI 2005 Act.
• The PIO is supposed to perform hi duty under the influence of the law and not his supervisors making the decisions if the information should be given or not.
• Section 28 of the RTI Act, 2005 empowers the Competent Authorities to make rules but due to such nature of rules which are a clear violation of the Parent Act this tampers the credibility of the whole system by putting it into negative light.
• Rule 3 of the H.C. of Allahabad states that one can only sough for one question per RTI meaning if an individual has 4 questions, they need to submit 4 different RTIs in order to get the assistance, this makes the process lengthy and difficult to keep track off and not to forget very expensive too. The CIC’s decision in Rajendra Singh Vs. CBI mentions that one application can have several questions as guided by the Parent Act.
• Rule 25 denies liability to give information that can be seek under the provision of the court , Rule 26shall not consider any application regarding that are pending adjudication and Rule 27 is regardingthat no application will been tertained for inspection of any records of the Allahabad high court
• Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court states that once the application is permitted the applicant would receive the information only when the payment is made in cash at Rs 15/ per page, which makes this seem like a revenue collection act.

CONCLUSION

The main motive of RTI was to make the governance of the nation accountable for their actions and giving the power within the hands of the common man to do so. This way there would be transparency within the system that would lead to a starting point for the eradication of the corrupt system. Right to Information Act is best described as an act to keep its citizens informed at all times as without it there is no democracy, it plays a crucial role for the growth of democracy. Today there are more than 80 counties that have adopted this practice of transparency with its people of land and the list continues to grow. The Act impowers people to take charge and hold the government accountable in times of need. To make this a seamless process the PIO Is appointed who is the public information officer that cannot deny any application and have to provide information within due time or face penalty by the law. RTI is a powerful tool and only with time it will keep improving and soon this nation will be flourishing in glory under smooth functioning governance and responsible citizens.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement