REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967   OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015)

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER               …..Appellant

VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND  ANOTHER                                                      …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The point falling for determination in this appeal is as regards

the right of a third party to apply for certified copies to be obtained

from  the  High  Court  by  invoking  the  provisions  of  Right  to

Information  Act  without  resorting  to  Gujarat  High  Court  Rules

prescribed by the High Court.

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-

An RTI application dated 05.04.2010 was filed by respondent

No.2 seeking information pertaining to the following cases – Civil

Application No.5517 of 2003 and Civil Application No.8072 of 1989

1

along with all relevant documents and certified copies. In reply, by

letter  dated  29.04.2010,  Public  Information  Officer,  Gujarat  High

Court informed respondent No.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 No.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.

4. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred Appeal No.84 of

2010 before the Appellate Authority-Registrar Administration under

Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”).

The  appeal  was  dismissed  vide  order  dated  04.08.2010  on  the

ground that for obtaining certified copies, the alternative efficacious

remedy is already available under the Gujarat  High Court  Rules,

1993 and that under the provisions of RTI Act, no certified copies

can be provided.

5. Respondent No.2 then filed Second Appeal No.1437 of 2010-

11 before the Appellant-Chief Information Commissioner and notice

2

was sent to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1-High Court filed its

response  reiterating  the  position  that  there  are  provisions  under

Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules for anybody who

wants  to  obtain  the  certified  copies  as  per  which,

application/affidavit should be filed stating the grounds for which the

documents  are  required  and  with  requisite  court  fee  stamps.

Respondent No.1 stated that despite the letter dated 02.07.2010 by

the  Deputy  Registrar  (CC Section),  Decree  Department,  Gujarat

High Court to respondent No.2 informing him of the procedure for

getting certified copies, respondent No.2 has not made application

as per the rules of the High Court and that the Public Information

Officer cannot be compelled to breach the High Court Rules and

hence, the appeal filed before the Chief Information Commissioner

(CIC) is liable to be dismissed. Relying upon Sections 6(2) and 22

of the RTI Act, the appellant-Chief Information Commissioner vide

its order dated 04.04.2013 directed Public Information Officer of the

Gujarat High Court to provide the information sought by respondent

No.2 within twenty days.  

6. Challenging  the  order  of  Chief  Information  Commissioner,

respondent  No.1  filed  Special  Civil  Application  No.7880  of  2013

before the High Court. The learned Single Judge, while admitting

3

the  petition,  passed  an  interim  order  dated  11.10.2013  directing

respondent No.1 to provide the information sought by respondent

No.2 within  four  weeks.  The learned Single  Judge held  that  the

legality and validity of the direction given by the appellant and the

right of respondent No.2 to receive the copies under RTI Act will be

considered at the stage of final hearing. It was however clarified that

supply of information by respondent No.1 shall not be construed as

acceptance of applicability of RTI Act to the High Court.  

7. Being aggrieved by the interim order, respondent No.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 impugned order, the High Court

allowed 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

4

Court Rules, certified copies may be given on payment of charges

as per the Rules and also the applicant (respondent No.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.

8. As the question involved is concerned with all the High Courts

and  having  regard  to  the  importance  of  the  matter,  we  have

requested Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor

General (ASG) to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court which

the learned ASG readily agreed.  Mr. Nadkarni collected information

from all the High Courts and filed a compilation of the information

obtained by him about the Rules framed by various High Courts in

exercise of their power under Article 225 of the Constitution of India

and under Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

9. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned Senior counsel for the appellant

has contended that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act specifically provides

that  an  applicant  making  a  request  for  information  shall  not  be

required to give reasons for requesting the information sought and

5

whereas under the Gujarat High Court Rules, applications made by

third parties seeking copies of the documents shall be accompanied

by an affidavit stating the grounds on which they are required and

there is direct inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act

and the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993.  It was submitted that in

view of the inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and

the Gujarat High Court Rules, harmonious construction between the

two  is  not  possible  and  in  the  event  of  conflict  between  the

provisions of RTI Act and any other law made by the Parliament or

State Legislature or any other authority, the former must prevail.  It

was submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act specifically provides

that the provisions of the RTI Act will have an overriding effect over

any other  laws for  the time being  in  force.   The  learned Senior

counsel submitted that the High Court Rules have been framed in

exercise of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India

which  would  be  subject  to  any  other  law  and  the  non-obstante

clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act shows that the provisions of the

RTI Act would override the High Court Rules.  The learned Senior

counsel  inter  alia relied  upon  the  recent  judgment  of  the

Constitution Bench in  Central Public Information Officer, Supreme

Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal 2019 (16) SCALE 40.

6

10. Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

intervenors  submitted  that  there  can  be  no  apprehension  that

allowing an applicant to seek information from the High Court under

RTI Act can prejudicially affect the privacy/rights of other parties or

the administration of justice. Reiterating the submission of Senior

counsel, Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, Mr. Prashant Bhushan submitted that

Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules is not in consonance with

Section 6(2) of the RTI Act and the provisions of RTI Act prevails

over  the  relevant  Rules  of  Public  Authorities/Gujarat  High  Court

Rules.   Taking  us  through  Section  22  of  the  RTI  Act,  learned

counsel  submitted  that  RTI  Act  is  a  general  law  made  by  the

Parliament with the avowed object of dissemination of information

and  ensuring  transparency  in  the  functioning  of  the  Public

Authorities and in view of non obstante clause of Section 22 of the

RTI  Act,  in  case of  any conflict  regarding “access to information

from public authorities”, the provisions of RTI Act will  prevail over

any other law.  In support of his contention, the learned counsel

placed reliance upon Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v.

Paras Jain 2019 SCC Online SC 764 and the Constitution Bench

judgment in Subhash Chandra Agrawal.

7

11. Mr.  Aniruddha  P.  Mayee,  learned  counsel  appearing  for

respondent No.1-High Court of Gujarat submitted that the Gujarat

High Court  Rules 149 to 154 do not stipulate anything contra to

Section 22 of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rule 151 is in

consonance with the RTI Act.  The learned counsel submitted that

respondent No.2 was only informed to make an application as per

the procedure stipulated under the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993

and since respondent No.2 was not a party to the proceedings, he

was  informed  that  his  application  shall  be  accompanied  with  an

affidavit  stating  the  grounds  for  which  the  certified  copies  are

required. The learned counsel submitted that when an efficacious

remedy is available under Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules

which is in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, the provisions

of the RTI Act cannot be invoked and the High Court rightly held that

there is no question of making an application under the RTI Act and

rightly  quashed  the  order  of  the  appellant-Chief  Information

Commissioner.

12. Mr.  Nadkarni,  learned  amicus  has  taken  us  through  the

information received from the various High Courts and submitted

that in exercise of power under Article 225 of the Constitution of

India, the High Court Rules are framed and the Rules provide for a

8

mode  for  furnishing  of  information  by  way  of  certified  copies  to

persons  who  are  party  to  the  litigation  after  making  payment  of

requisite  fees.   It  was submitted that  insofar  as  third parties  i.e.

persons who are not party to the litigation are concerned, the same

is also provided under the Rules, if the third party files an affidavit

stating the reasonable grounds to receive such information/certified

copies. The learned amicus submitted that there is no inconsistency

between the RTI Act and the Rules framed by the High Court so as

to furnish information. It was also submitted that although Section

22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect over any other laws, in

case there are inconsistencies, Section 22 of the RTI Act does not

contemplate to override those legislations which also aim to ensure

access to information.  The learned amicus submitted that so far as

the information on the judicial  side of  the High Court,  the Rules

framed by the High Court provide for dissemination of information to

third party as per the High Court Rules by filing an application with

requisite fee and filing an affidavit stating the grounds.  Insofar as

the information on the administrative side of  the High Court,  the

learned amicus submitted that access to such information could be

had through the Rules framed by the various High Courts and the

Rules framed under the RTI Act by the High Courts.  Drawing our

attention to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in The Registrar,

9

Supreme  Court  of  India  v.  RS  Misra  (2017)  244  DLT  179 and

judgment  of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  in  Karnataka  Information

Commissioner  v.  State  Public  Information  Officer  and  another

WP(C)  No.9418 of  2008,  the learned  amicus submitted that  the

High Courts have taken a consistent view that the information can

be accessed through the mechanism provided under the Supreme

Court  Rules,  2013  and  the  High  Court  Rules  and  once  any

information  can  be  accessed  through  the  mechanism  provided

under the Statute or the Rules framed, the provisions of the RTI Act

cannot be resorted to.

13. We have carefully  considered the contentions and perused

the  impugned judgment  and  materials  on  record.   The  following

points arise for consideration in this appeal:-

(i) Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993

stipulating that for providing copy of documents to the third

parties,  they  are  required  to  file  an  affidavit  stating  the

reasons  for  seeking  certified  copies,  suffers  from  any

inconsistency with the provisions of RTI Act?  

(ii) When  there  are  two  machineries  to  provide

information/certified  copies  –  one  under  the  High  Court

Rules and another under the RTI Act, in the absence of

any inconsistency in  the High Court  Rules,  whether  the

provisions  of  RTI  Act  can  be  resorted  to  for  obtaining

certified copy/information?

10

14. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 explains the

meaning of the term “information” which reads as under:-

2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless, the context otherwise requires,-

………

(f)  "information"  means  any  material  in  any  form,  including records,  documents,  memos,  e-mails,  opinions,  advices,  press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;  

15. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority”.  The

term “public authority” has been given very wide meaning in the

RTI Act.  Section 2(h) of the RTI Act reads as under:-

2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless, the context otherwise requires,-

………

(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,—  

(a) by or under the Constitution;  (b) by any other law made by Parliament;  (c) by any other law made by State Legislature;  (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate

Government, and includes any—  

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;  (ii)  non-Government  Organisation  substantially

financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;  

16. Section  2(i)  of  the  RTI  Act  defines  “record”  which  is  an

inclusive definition.   Section 2(j)  explains  “right  to information”.

Sections 2(i) and 2(j) of the RTI Act read as under:-

2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless, the context otherwise requires,-

………

11

(i) "record" includes—  

(i) any document, manuscript and file;  (ii)  any  microfilm,  microfiche  and  facsimile  copy  of  a

document;  (iii)any reproduction of image or  images embodied in such

microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and  (iv) any other material produced by a computer or any other

device;  

(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control  of  any public authority and includes the right to—  

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;  (ii)taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or

records;  (iii) taking certified samples of material;  (iv)  obtaining  information in  the  form of  diskettes,  floppies,

tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts  where  such information  is  stored in  a computer or in any other device;

17. Section  8(1)  of  the  RTI  Act  provides  for  exemption  from

disclosure  of  information.  Right  to  information  is  subject  to

exceptions or exemptions stated in Section 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(j) of the

RTI  Act.   There are  ten clauses of  Section 8(1)  of  the RTI  Act.

Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 deals with information that

would compromise the sovereignty or integrity of the country and

like  matter;  clause  (b)  covers  any  information  which  has  been

expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal

or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; clause

(c) covers such matters which would cause a breach of privilege of

the  Parliament  or  the  State  Legislatures;  clause  (d)  protects

information of commercial nature and trade secrets and intellectual

12

property;  clause  (e)  exempts  the  disclosure  of  any  information

available  to  a  person  in  his  fiduciary  relationship,  unless  the

competent  authority  is  satisfied  that  the  larger  public  interest

warrants  the  disclosure  of  such  information;  clause  (f)  prevents

information being disseminated, if it is received in confidence from

any foreign Government; clause (g) exempts the disclosure of any

information which endanger the life or physical safety of any person

or  identify  the  source  of  information  or  assistance  given  in

confidence  for  law  enforcement  or  security  purposes;  clause  (h)

bars access to such information which would impede the process of

investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; clause (i)

forbids records and papers relating to deliberations of ministers and

officers of the executive being made available, subject to a proviso;

and, clause (j)  prohibits disclosure of personal information unless

there is an element of public interest involved.

18. In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India

v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal 2019 (16) SCALE 40,  the Supreme

Court  upheld  the  order  passed  by  the  Central  Information

Commissioner directing the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to furnish

information as to the assets declared by the Hon’ble Judges of the

Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench held that such disclosure

would not, in any way, impinge upon the personal information and

13

right  to  privacy  of  the  Judges.  The  fiduciary  relationship  rule  in

terms  of  Section  8(1)(e)  of  the  RTI  Act  was  held  inapplicable.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively relied upon

the  observations  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Subhash  Chandra

Agarwal.  Since the issue before us is the High Court Rules vis-a-

vis.,  the  RTI  Act,  we  do  not  propose  to  refer  the  various

observations  copiously  relied  upon  by  the  learned  counsel

appearing for the parties.

19. Article 124 relates to the establishment and constitution of the

Supreme Court.  Article 124 states that the Supreme Court of India

consist of Chief Justice of India and other Judges. Under Article 145

of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may, from time to time, with

the approval of the President, make Rules for regulating generally

the Practice and Procedure of the Court.  In exercise of the powers

under Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has framed

“Supreme Court Rules”. Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules lays

down  the  procedure  in  respect  of  grant  of  certified  copies  of

pleadings, judgments, documents, decrees or orders, deposition of

the witnesses, etc. to the parties to the litigation and also to the third

parties.  The parties to a proceeding in the Supreme Court shall be

entitled to obtain certified copies by making appropriate application

14

and the court fees payable as per the “Supreme Court Rules”.  So

far as the third parties are concerned, as per Order XIII Rule 2 of

the Supreme Court Rules, the court on the application of a person

who  is  not  a  party  to  the  case,  appeal  or  matter,  pending  or

disposed  of,  may  on  good  cause  shown,  allow  such  person  to

receive such copies as is or are mentioned in the Order XIII Rule 1

of  the  Supreme Court  Rules.   Thus,  as  per  the  Supreme Court

Rules  also,  the  third  party  is  required  to  show  good  cause  for

obtaining certified copies of the documents or orders.

20. Article 216 relates to the constitution of High Courts.  Every

High Court  consists  of  a  Chief  Justice  and other  Judges as the

President of India may from time to time appoint.  The High Court

Rules are framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India.  The

procedure  followed  for  furnishing  of  copies/certified  copies  of

orders/documents etc.,  being information on the judicial  side,  are

governed by the Rules framed by the High Court under Article 225

of the Constitution of India.  Insofar as the RTI Act is concerned, in

exercise of  the powers under Section 28 of  the RTI Act,  various

High  Courts  have  framed  the  Rules  under  RTI  Act  and  the

information  on  the  administrative  side  of  the  High  Court  can  be

15

accessed as per the Rules framed by the High Courts under RTI

Act.   

21. In  the  present  case,  we  are  concerned  with  Gujarat  High

Court Rules.  Grant of certified copies to parties to the litigation and

third  parties  are  governed by Rules 149  to  154  of  Gujarat  High

Court  Rules.   As  per  the  Rules,  on  filing  of  application  with

prescribed court fees stamp, litigants/parties to the proceedings are

entitled to receive the copies of documents/orders/judgments etc.

The third parties who are not parties in any of the proceedings, shall

not be given the copies of judgments and other documents without

the order of the Assistant Registrar. As per Rule 151 of the Gujarat

High  Court  Rules,  the  applications  requesting  for  copies  of

documents/judgments made by third parties, shall be accompanied

by an affidavit stating the grounds for which they are required.  Rule

151 reads as under:-

“151.   Parties  to  proceedings entitled to  copies;  application  by third  parties  to  be  accompanied  by  affidavits.   Copies  of documents  in  any Civil  or  Criminal  Proceedings and copies  of judgment of the High Court shall not be given to persons other than  the  parties  thereto  without  the  order  of  the  Assistant Registrar.   Applications  for  copies  of  documents  or  judgment made by third parties shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the  grounds  on  which  they  are  required,  provided  that  such affidavit shall be dispensed with in case of applications made by or on behalf of the Government of the Union, the Government of any State or the Government of any foreign State.”

16

22. The  learned  amicus has  obtained  information  from  various

High Courts as to the procedure followed by the High Courts for

furnishing certified  copies of  orders/judgments/documents.  As  per

the Rules framed by various High Courts, parties to the proceedings

are entitled to obtain certified copies of orders/judgments/documents

on  filing  of  application  along  with  prescribed  court  fees  stamp.

Insofar as furnishing of certified copies to third parties, the Rules

framed  by  the  High  Courts  stipulate  that  the  certified  copies  of

documents/orders or judgments or copies of proceedings would be

furnished to the third parties only on the orders passed by the court

or the Registrar, on being satisfied about the reasonable cause and

bona fide of the reasons seeking the information/certified copies of

the documents.   We may refer  to  the Rules framed by the High

Courts of Bombay, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madras

and various other High Courts which stipulate similar provisions for

furnishing information/certified  copies to  third  parties.   The Rules

stipulate that for the third parties to have access to the information

on  the  judicial  side  or  obtaining  certified  copies  of

documents/judgments/orders, the third parties will have to make an

application stating the reasons for which they are required and on

payment  of  necessary  court  fees  stamp.   As  pointed  out  earlier,

Supreme  Court  Rules  also  stipulate  that  certified  copies  of

17

documents or orders could be supplied to the third parties only on

being satisfied about the reasonable cause.  Be it noted, the access

to  the  information  or  certified  copies  of  the

documents/judgments/orders/court  proceedings  are  not  denied  to

the third parties.  The Rules of the High Court only stipulate that the

third  parties  will  have  to  file  an  application/affidavit  stating  the

reasons for which the information/certified copies are required. The

Rules framed by the Gujarat High Court are in consonance with the

provisions of the RTI Act.  There is no inconsistency between the

provisions of the RTI Act with the Rules framed by the High Court in

exercise of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India.  

23. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned Senior counsel for the appellant

has submitted that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act grants a substantive

right  and  the  person  who  is  seeking  information/copies  is  not

required to give any reason and this right  cannot be curtailed or

whittled down by procedural laws framed by the High Court under

Article 225 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention

that the rules framed by the High Court in exercise of powers under

Article 225 cannot make or curtail any substantive law, reliance was

placed  upon  Raj  Kumar  Yadav  v.  Samir  Kumar  Mahaseth  and

Others  (2005)  3  SCC  601.  Learned  Senior  counsel  further

18

submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act specifically provides that

the provisions of the RTI Act will have an overriding effect over other

laws for the time being in force. It was therefore, submitted that in

the event of any conflict between the provisions of the RTI Act and

any other laws made by the Parliament or a State Legislature or any

other  authority,  the  provisions  of  the  RTI  Act  must  prevail  and

therefore, the RTI Act would prevail over the rules framed by the

High  Court.  Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  counsel  for  the

intervention applicants also reiterated the same submission.  

24. In  order  to  consider  the  contentions  urged  by  the  learned

Senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, let us

briefly refer to the various categories of information held by the High

Court, which are broadly as under:-

(a) information  held  by  the  High  Court  relating  to  the

parties  to  the  litigation/proceedings  –  pleadings,

documents and other materials and memo of grounds

raised by the parties;

(b) orders  and  judgments  passed  by  the  High  Court,

notes of proceedings, etc.;

(c) In  exercise  of  power  of  superintendence  over  the

other courts and tribunals, information received in the

records  submitted/called  for  by  those  courts  and

tribunals like subordinate judiciary,  various tribunals

like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise

19

and  Service  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal  and  other

tribunals;

(d) information  on  the  administrative  side  of  the  High

Court viz. appointments, transfers and postings of the

judicial officers, staff members of the High Court and

the district judiciary, disciplinary action taken against

the judicial officers and the staff members and such

other information relating to the administrative work.  

(e) Correspondence by the High Court with the Supreme

Court, Government and with the district judiciary, etc.;

and

(f) information  on  the  administrative  side  as  to  the

decision taken by the collegium of the High Court in

making  recommendations  of  the  Judges  to  be

appointed  to  the  High  Court;  information  as  to  the

assets of the sitting Judges held by the Chief Justice

of the High Court.

25. Information under  the categories  (a),  (b)  and (c)  and other

information on the judicial side can be accessed/certified copies of

documents  and  orders  could  be  obtained  by  the  parties  to  the

proceedings in terms of the High Court Rules and the parties to the

proceedings are entitled to the same. So far as the third parties are

concerned,  as  of  right,  they  are  not  entitled  to  access  the

information/obtain  the  certified  copies  of  documents,  orders  and

other proceedings. As per rules framed by the High Court, a third

20

party can obtain the certified copies of  the documents,  orders or

judgments or can have access to the information only by filing an

application/affidavit  and  by  stating  the  reason  for  which  the

information/copies of documents or orders are required. Insofar as

on the administrative side i.e. categories (d), (e) and (f), one can

have access to the information or copies of the documents could be

obtained  under  the  rules  framed  by  the  various  High  Courts  or

under the rules framed by the High Court under the RTI Act. Insofar

as the disclosure of information as to the assets of the Judges held

by the Chief Justice of the High Court, the same is now covered by

the judgment of the Constitution Bench reported in  Central Public

Information Officer,  Supreme Court  of  India v.  Subhash Chandra

Agrawal 2019 (16) SCALE 40.  

26. The  preamble  to  the  RTI  Act  suggests  that  the  Act  was

enacted “to promote transparency and accountability in the working

of every public authority…….”.  The Act was enacted by keeping in

view  the  right  of  “an  informed  citizenry  and  transparency  of

information which are  vital  to  its  functioning and also to  contain

corruption  and  to  hold  Governments  and  their  instrumentalities

accountable  to  the  governed…..”.  The  preamble  opens  with  a

reference  to  the  Constitution  having  established  a  democratic

21

republic  and  the  need  therefore,  for  an  informed  citizenry.  The

preamble reveals that legislature was conscious of the likely conflict

with  other  public  interest  including  efficient  operations  of  the

Governments and optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the

preservation  of  confidentiality  of  sensitive  information  and  the

necessity to harmonise these conflicting interests. A citizen of India

has every right to ask for any information subject to the limitation

prescribed under the Act.  The right to seek information is only to

fulfill the objectives of the Act laid down in the preamble, that is, to

promote transparency of information.  

27. Rule 151 of  the Gujarat High Court Rules,  1993 requires a

third party  applicant  seeking copies of  documents in  any civil  or

criminal  proceedings  to  file  an  application/affidavit  stating  the

reasons for which those documents are required. As such, the High

Court Rules do not obstruct a third party from obtaining copies of

documents in any court proceedings or any document on the judicial

side.  It  is  not  as  if  the  information  is  denied  or  refused  to  the

applicant. All that is required to be done is to apply for the certified

copies with application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the

information.  The reason insisting upon the third party for stating the

grounds for obtaining certified copies is to satisfy the court that the

22

information is sought for  bona fide reasons or to effectuate public

interest. The information is held by the High Court as a trustee for

the litigants in order to adjudicate upon the matter and administer

justice. The same cannot be permitted by the third party to have

access to such personal information of  the parties or  information

given by the Government in the proceedings. Lest, there would be

misuse of process of court and the information and it would reach

unmanageable  levels.  If  the  High  Court  Rules  framed  under

Article  225 provide a  mechanism for  invoking the said right  in  a

particular  manner,  the said mechanism should  be preserved and

followed.  The  said  mechanism  cannot  be  abandoned  or

discontinued merely because the general law – RTI Act has been

enacted.  

28. As discussed earlier, the object of the RTI Act itself recognizes

the  need  to  protect  the  institutional  interest  and  also  to  make

optimum  use  of  limited  fiscal  resources  and  preservation  of

confidentiality  of  sensitive  information.  The  procedure  to  obtain

certified copies under the High Court Rules is not cumbersome and

the procedure is very simple – filing of an application/affidavit along

with  the  requisite  court  fee  stating  the  reasons  for  seeking  the

information. The information held by the High Court on the judicial

23

side are the “personal information” of the litigants like title cases and

family court matters, etc.  Under the guise of seeking information

under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to be abused and

information not to be misused.   

29. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, if the records are received by the High Court

from tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it may contain the

details disclosed by an assessee in his Income Tax Return. As held

in  Girish  Ramchandra  Deshpande  v.  Central  Information

Commissioner and Others (2013) 1 SSC 212, the details disclosed

by  a  person  in  his  Income Tax  Return  are  personal  information

which stands exempted from disclosure unless it involves a larger

public interest and the larger public interest justifies the disclosure

of such information. While seeking information or certified copies of

the documents, the High Court Rules which require the third party to

a proceeding to file an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the

information,  the same cannot be said to be inconsistent  with the

provisions of the RTI Act in as much as the rejection if any, made

thereafter will be for the very reasons as stipulated in Section 8 of

the RTI Act.

24

30. Considering the implementation of RTI Act and observing that

the  existing  mechanism  for  invoking  the  said  right  should  be

preserved and operated,  in  Institute of  Chartered Accountants of

India  v.  Shaunak  H.  Satya  and  Others  (2011)  8  SCC  781,  the

Supreme Court held as under:-

“24. One  of  the  objects  of  democracy  is  to  bring  about transparency of information to contain corruption and bring about accountability. But achieving this object does not mean that other equally important public interests including efficient functioning of the  governments  and  public  authorities,  optimum  use  of  limited fiscal  resources,  preservation  of  confidentiality  of  sensitive information, etc. are to be ignored or sacrificed. The object of the RTI  Act  is  to  harmonise  the  conflicting  public  interests,  that  is, ensuring  transparency  to  bring  in  accountability  and  containing corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the revelation  of  information,  in  actual  practice,  does  not  harm  or adversely  affect  other  public  interests  which  include  efficient functioning  of  the  governments,  optimum  use  of  limited  fiscal resources  and  preservation  of  confidentiality  of  sensitive information,  on the other hand. While Sections 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first objective, Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the second objective.

25. Therefore,  when Section 8 exempts certain  information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals. Therefore, in dealing with information not falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent authorities under the RTI Act will  not read the exemptions in Section 8 in a restrictive manner but in a practical manner so that the other public interests are preserved and the RTI Act attains a fine balance between its goal of attaining transparency of information and safeguarding the other public interests.”

31. While examining the issue of where two mechanisms exist for

obtaining the information i.e. the Supreme Court Rules and the RTI

25

Act, in  The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra  (2017)

244 DLT 179, the Delhi High Court held that “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

(2017) 244 DLT 179, the Delhi High Court held as under:-

“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 W.P.(C) 3530/2011 Page 22 of 36 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 RTI Act,

namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of 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.

26

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  subSection  (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.” [Underlining added]   

The same view was taken up by the Karnataka High Court in State

Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar (Establishment) v.

Karnataka Information Commission and Another  WP No.26763 of

2013 dated 09.01.2019.  

32. We fully endorse above views 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

27

application/affidavit,  the  provisions  of  the  RTI  Act  are  not  to  be

resorted.

33. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RTI Act provides that every

public authority to take steps to provide as much information  suo

motu  to  the public  at  regular  intervals  through various means of

communications including internet, so that the public have minimum

resort  to the use of  the RTI Act  to obtain information.  Suo motu

disclosure of information on important aspects of working of a public

authority is therefore, an essential component of information regime.

The  judgments  and  orders  passed  by  the  High  Courts  are  all

available  in  the  website  of  the  respective  High  Courts  and  any

person can have access to these judgments and orders. Likewise,

the status of the pending cases and the orders passed by the High

Courts in exercise of its power under Section 235 of the Constitution

of  India  i.e.  control  over  the  subordinate  courts  like  transfers,

postings and promotions are also made available in the website. In

order  to  maintain  the  confidentiality  of  the  documents  and  other

information  pertaining  to  the  litigants  to  the  proceedings  and  to

maintain proper balance, Rules of the High Court insist upon the

third  party  to  file  an  application/affidavit  to  obtain

information/certified copies of the documents, lest such application

28

would reach unmanageable proportions apart  from the misuse of

such information.  

34. Section 22 of the RTI Act lays down that the provisions of the

RTI  Act  shall  have  effect  notwithstanding  anything  inconsistent

therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other

law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by

virtue of any law other than RTI Act. Learned Senior counsel for the

appellant has submitted that since the requirement under Rule 151

of  the  Gujarat  High  Court  Rules  of  filing  an  affidavit  stating  the

grounds for seeking the information is directly contrary to Section

6(2) of the RTI Act and there is direct inconsistency between the

provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules and in

the event of conflict between the provisions of the RTI Act and any

other  law made by the Parliament  or  a State  Legislature  or  any

other authority, the RTI Act must prevail.  

35. In the non obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTI Act, three

categories have been mentioned:- (i) the Official Secrets Act, 1923;

and  (ii)  any  other  law  for  the  time  being  in  force;  or  (iii)  any

instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. In

case of inconsistency of any law with the provisions of the Right to

Information Act, overriding effect has been given to the provisions of

29

the Right to Information Act. Section 31 of the RTI Act which is a

repealing clause repeals only the Freedom of Information Act, 2002

and not other laws. The Right to Information Act has not repealed

the Official Secrets Act or any of the laws providing confidentiality

which prohibits the authorities to disclose information. Therefore, all

those enactments including Official Secrets Act, 1923 continue to be

in force.  This Act  however, has an overriding effect to the extent

they are inconsistent.  

36. The  non-obstante  clause of  the RTI Act  does not mean an

implied repeal of the High Court Rules and Orders framed under

Article 225 of the Constitution of India; but only has an overriding

effect in case of inconsistency. A special enactment or rule cannot

be  held  to  be  overridden  by  a  later  general  enactment  simply

because the  latter  opens  up  with  a  non-obstante  clause,  unless

there  is  clear  inconsistency  between the two legislations.  In  this

regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court

in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335 wherein,

the Supreme Court held as under:-

“38. In  Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v.  Union of India  (1984) 3 SCC 127, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed thus :

“As  mentioned  hereinbefore  if  the  scheme  was  held  to  be valid, then the question what is the general law and what is the special  law and which law in  case of  conflict  would prevail would  have  arisen  and  that  would  have  necessitated  the application  of  the  principle  “generalia  specialibus  non

30

derogant”. The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied:

(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.     (ii) There is some express reference in the later to the

earlier enactment.

If  either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail.”

37. As pointed out earlier, Section 31 of the RTI Act repeals only

the Freedom of  Information Act,  2002 and not  other  laws.  If  the

intention of  the legislature  was to  repeal  any other  Acts  or  laws

which deal  with  the dissemination of  information to  an applicant,

then the RTI Act would have clearly specified so. In the absence of

any provision to this effect, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be

interpreted  so as to  attribute  a  meaning to  them which was not

intended by  the legislature.   In  the  RTI  Act,  there is  no  specific

reference to the rules framed by the various High Courts or  any

other special law excepting the Freedom of Information Act, 2002.

38. As  discussed  earlier,  Rule  151  of  the  Gujarat  High  Court

Rules requires a third party to the proceedings to file an affidavit and

state the reasons for seeking access to the information or grant of

certified copies of records and there is no inconsistency of the High

Court Rules with the provisions of the RTI Act.  The Gujarat High

Court Rules neither prohibit nor forbid dissemination of information

31

or grant of certified copies of records. The difference is only insofar

as the stipulation of filing an application/affidavit or payment of fees,

etc.  is  concerned,  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the  two

provisions and therefore, the RTI Act has no overriding effect over

Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules.  

39. Ten categories of  information are exempted from disclosure

under Section 8(1)(a) to (j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) excludes

disclosure of personal information, the disclosure of which:- (i) has

no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (ii) would cause

unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, in

both  the  cases,  the  Central  Public  Information  Officer  or  the

appellate authority may order disclosure of such information, if they

are  satisfied  that  larger  public  interest  justifies  disclosure.  This

would imply that personal information which has some relationship

to any public activity or interest may be liable to be disclosed. An

invasion of privacy may be held to be justified if the larger public

interest so warrants.  

40. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side are

the personal information of the parties to the litigation or information

furnished by the Government in relation to a particular case. There

may be information held by the High Court  relating to the cases

32

which have been obtained from the various tribunals in exercise of

the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of  India.  For instance,  the matters arising out  of  the

orders by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and

Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other tribunals over which the

High  Court  exercises  the  supervisory  jurisdiction.  The

orders/judgments  passed  by  the  High  Court  though  are  the

documents which are concerned to the rights and liabilities of the

parties to the litigation.  Under  Section 8(1)(j)  of  the RTI  Act,  the

Central  Public  Information  Officer  or  the  appellate  authority  may

order disclosure of personal information if they are satisfied that the

larger public interest justifies disclosure. Insofar as the High Court

Rules are concerned,  if  the information or  certified copies of  the

documents/record of proceedings/orders on the judicial side of the

Court is required, all that the third party is required to do is to file an

application/affidavit  stating  the  reasons  for  seeking  such

information. On being satisfied about the reasons for requirement of

the  certified  copy/disclosure  of  information,  the  Court  or  the

concerned  Officer  would  order  for  grant  of  certified  copies.  As

discussed earlier,  Order XIII  Rule 3 of  the Supreme Court  Rules

also stipulate the same procedure insofar as the third party seeking

certified copy of the documents/records.  

33

41. Yet another contention advanced is that the information held

by the High Court may be furnished to the applicant by following the

procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Section 11 of the Act

deals with third party information. As per Section 11 of the Act, if

the requisite information or record or part thereof has been supplied

by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third

party,  then  the Central  Public  Information  Officer  or  State  Public

Information Officer, as the case may be, within five days of receipt of

the request give a written notice to such third party of the request

and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State

Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose

the information or record or part thereof and invite the third party to

make  a  submission  in  writing  or  orally  regarding  whether  such

information should be disclosed and such submission of the third

party  shall  be  kept  in  view  while  taking  a  decision  about  the

disclosure of the information.  

42. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that

such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the

information/certified  copies  of  the  documents.  When  there  is  an

effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining

certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure  i.e.

34

filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating

the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not

find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt

a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time

and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends

to avoid.  

43. We summarise our conclusion:-

(i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating

a  third  party  to  have  access  to  the

information/obtaining  the  certified  copies  of  the

documents  or  orders  requires  to  file  an

application/affidavit  stating  the  reasons  for  seeking

the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions

of  the  RTI  Act;  but  merely  lays  down  a  different

procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for

obtaining  information.  In  the  absence  of  inherent

inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act

and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not

apply.  

(ii) The  information  to  be  accessed/certified  copies  on

the  judicial  side  to  be  obtained  through  the

mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the

provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.

44. In the light of aforesaid reasonings, the impugned order dated

13.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in

35

Letters  Patent  Appeal  No.1348  of  2013  is  confirmed  and  these

appeals are dismissed. We place on record the valuable assistance

rendered by Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni as amicus.

..…………………….J.       [R. BANUMATHI]

..…………………….J.        [A.S. BOPANNA]

..……………………….J.        [HRISHIKESH ROY]

New Delhi; March 04, 2020.

36