Jump to content
karira

New Supreme Court Rules for inspection and copies must become RTI-compliant

Recommended Posts

karira

From an email received from Mr Venkatesh Nayak

 

 

New Supreme Court Rules for inspection and copies must become RTI-compliant

 

 

Today, the Supreme Court of India has begun implementing its new set of Rules for regulating its practice and procedures. These Rules were notified in May this year. They replace the existing Rules brought into force in 1966. Readers may access the text of the new SC Rules at:http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/Supreme%20Court%20Rules,%202013.pdf

Readers will recollect that the Registry of the Supreme Court is also a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Whether the Chief Justice of India is also a public authority under the same law, is a question that has been referred to a Constitution Bench of the Court in November 2010 in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2011) 1SCC 496. This Bench has not been constituted for almost four years despite important constitutional and legal questions being framed by the three-Judge Bench. Readers may recollect this is the well known 'judges' assets case' initiated by the RTI intervention of veteran RTI activist Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal.

 

I have enclosed a document containing a comparison between the 1966 Rules and the new Rules of the Apex Court from the perspective of the RTI Act. While access to court records were governed by Order XII of the 1966 Rules, they have been split up under Orders X and XIII in the 2014 version. They cover the rights of parties as well as strangers to information about any judicial proceeding. The 1966 Rules required a stranger who is not a party to any ongoing judicial proceeding to give reasons (i.e., "show cause") for seeking copies of documents related to that proceeding. This requirement remains unchanged under the new Rules.

Several experts including the Public Information Officer of the Apex Court and their advocates have tried to draw a distinction between seeking copies of court records under the Court's rules as well as seeking the same information under the RTI Act. The PIO of the Apex Court has frequently denied access to copies of Court records under the RTI Act stating that the 1966 Court Rules permit access to even strangers under Order XII, so there is no need to make a request under the RTI Act. However what is often lost in the interpretation is the question- why should Court Rules be forced upon an RTI applicant when the request is made under the RTI Act. Division Benches of both Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts have ruled that when a public authority under the Executive arm of the State receives RTI applications, it must deal with them in terms of the RTI Rules and not any other Rules, especially with regard to calculation of fees. These judgements will override the Delhi High Court Single judge Bench's 2012 directive that when other laws also provide for access to information then those fee Rules will apply no matter what [see Registrar of Companies and Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Anr. (2012) ILR6 Delhi 499]. So the same principle must apply to Courts as well. A second contradiction with the RTI Act is that a stranger has to show cause for seeking information under the Court Rules while under the RTI Act there is no such compulsion. Of course when a person seeks information under the Court Rules, those Rules must apply, however, when a request is made under the RTI Act, then commonsense requires that the RTI Rules must apply.

It is a clear recognition of this commonsensical principle which seems to have guided the Madras High Court to amend its Appellate Side Rules (but not the Original Side Rules) in 2010. Order XII, Rule 3, earlier required a stranger to a case to submit an affidavit explaining to the Court why he/she wants copies of a court record. The 2010 amendment deletes this requirement. So now a stranger to an ongoing appeal case needs to only make an application to the Madras High Court seeking copies of any document of an ongoing case. While notifying its new Rules, the Hon'ble Supreme Court could have incorporated similar provisions to make them RTI-compliant. I hope the Apex Court makes its new Rules RTI compliant just as the Madras High Court did four years ago.

Readers may also note that Article 145(1) of the Constitution is the source of the Apex Court's power to make Rules with the approval of the President to regulate its procedure. This provision starts with the phrase: "Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament..." The RTI Act is clearly a law made by Parliament and covers the Supreme Court squarely as a 'public authority' and all court records as 'information' within its definitions. So when a request for court records in an ongoing case is made under the RTI Act, the RTI Rules must prevail because the Constitution subjects the Court Rules to the RTI Act. Time and again the PIO of the Apex Court has contested this position. A matter relating to access to records on the administrative side of the Apex Court in which I assisted the Appellant has been referred to a full bench of the CIC in May this year. The outcome of a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against the Apex Court- again about information pertaining to the administrative side which Commodore (retd.) Lokesh Batra has filed- is awaited as the judgement has been reserved last week.

SCI-2013Rules-v-1966Rules-ATIprovisions-comparison-Aug14.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Hon'ble Karira sir, greeting. Sir, this is really an excellent post/ matter highlighted by you.Thanx once again sir, have a nice day sir.

 

 

Sent from RTI INDIA Mobile App

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shanu india shanu

Not to mention anything meaningless shani

 

Sent from RTI INDIA Mobile App

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under: 35.....
      “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” 

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy