CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT & ANR (2020) 4 SCC 702:

DATE: 04.03.2020

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy

FACTS:

The facts leading up to the case began with an RTI application dated April 5, 2010, filed by respondent No. 2 (a third party not involved in the underlying proceedings) to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the High Court of Gujarat. The applicant sought certified copies of all relevant documents and orders from two specific civil cases decided by the High Court. The PIO rejected the request, citing that certified copies of judicial records must be obtained through the established procedure under the Gujarat High Court Rules (which required an application with court fees and, for third parties, an affidavit explaining the reasons for seeking the copies), rather than via the RTI Act. Aggrieved by this denial, respondent No. 2 filed a first appeal before the Appellate Authority (Registrar Administration) of the High Court, which was dismissed on August 4, 2010, on the ground that an alternative efficacious remedy existed under the High Court's rules for obtaining certified copies, and thus the RTI route was not applicable.

Dissatisfied with the appellate order, respondent No. 2 escalated the matter by filing a second appeal (No. 1437 of 2010-11) before the Chief Information Commissioner. The CIC, relying on Sections 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act (which override inconsistent laws and prohibit inquiring into the applicant's motives), directed the PIO of the High Court to provide the requested information. Aggrieved by the CIC's direction, the High Court of Gujarat challenged it before the Gujarat High Court (in a writ petition), which set aside the CIC's order and held that the High Court's rules for certified copies prevailed over the RTI Act in such cases. The Chief Information Commissioner then appealed against the Gujarat High Court's decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The issues presented in the case were twofold: (i) whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which requires a third party seeking certified copies of judicial documents or orders to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for the request suffers from any inconsistency with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005; and (ii) when two mechanisms exist for supplying information/certified copies (one under the High Court Rules and another under the RTI Act), whether, in the absence of any inconsistency in the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act can still be resorted to for obtaining such certified copies/information.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The judgment dismissed the appeals filed by the Chief Information Commissioner. It confirmed the order passed by the Gujarat High Court and held that Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules is not inconsistent with the RTI Act; certified copies of documents or orders on the judicial side must be obtained only through the mechanism prescribed under the High Court Rules, and the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to in such matters.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court Rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution are in consonance with the RTI Act and do not suffer from any inherent inconsistency that would trigger the overriding effect of Section 22 of the RTI Act. Rule 151 merely prescribes a different procedure requiring a third-party applicant to file an affidavit disclosing the reasons for seeking the copies along with the prescribed court fees, without denying or prohibiting access to the information itself. This requirement does not curtail the substantive right under Section 6(2) of the RTI Act (which exempts the applicant from stating reasons in a standard RTI application), but serves as a procedural safeguard; the Rules ensure that the information held by the High Court (as trustee for litigants) is not released indiscriminately, thereby preventing misuse and protecting confidentiality of personal or sensitive judicial records such as those in title suits or family matters.

The Court further held that the existence of a specific statutory mechanism under the High Court Rules precludes resort to the RTI Act as a parallel or alternative route, as this would lead to duplication of processes and potential abuse. Relying on the principle that when information is accessible through another established statutory channel, the RTI Act need not be invoked, the bench observed that the affidavit requirement enables the court to verify bona fide purpose or public interest before granting access to third parties. This approach maintains a proper balance between transparency under the RTI Act and the need to keep judicial records manageable and confidential, without rendering the High Court’s rule-making power under Article 225 redundant or subordinate to the general RTI framework.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on the interplay between the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the procedural rules framed by High Courts for supplying certified copies of judicial records. The Court held that Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which requires a third party to file an application accompanied by an affidavit disclosing the reasons for seeking certified copies along with prescribed court fees is not inconsistent with the RTI Act. Consequently, certified copies of documents or orders on the judicial side of the High Court must be obtained strictly through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, and the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be invoked as a parallel or alternative route. This decision affirmed the Gujarat High Court’s order setting aside the Chief Information Commissioner’s direction to supply the information under the RTI Act and clarified that High Courts, acting as trustees of judicial records, can regulate access to prevent indiscriminate disclosure while maintaining transparency.

The judgment strikes a balance between the transparency objectives of the RTI Act and the need to preserve the confidentiality and orderly management of judicial records. By holding that the affidavit requirement under the High Court Rules serves merely as a procedural safeguard (and does not deny access or violate Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, which bars inquiring into motives for standard RTI applications), the Court prevented potential misuse or fishing expeditions by third parties in sensitive matters such as family disputes or title suits. Critics have argued that the ruling dilutes the overriding effect of Section 22 of the RTI Act and creates a barrier to easy public access to court records, potentially undermining judicial transparency. However, the bench reasoned that where an efficacious alternative mechanism already exists under rules framed pursuant to Article 225 of the Constitution, resort to the RTI Act would lead to unnecessary duplication and render the High Court’s rule-making power redundant. Overall, the decision reinforces institutional autonomy of the judiciary in managing its own records while harmonizing it with the broader goals of accountability.