Consumer Protection Regulations Must Be Interpreted To Align With Overarching Goal Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court observed that the absence of explicit prohibition on third parties from accessing information related to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 as a gap in the regulatory framework and this the Regulations should be interpreted in line with the RTI Act's goal of enhancing transparency.
It further observed that third parties must provide detailed reasons while filing RTI applications to obtain copies of orders and other documents related to National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) proceedings.
Background of case:
Justice Sanjeev Narula was considering the challenge of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (petitioner) against the order of Chief Information Commissioner. The Chief Information Commissioner had directed the CPIO to provide the information sought by the respondent in his RTI application.
The Respondent had requested for the copies of a Consumer Complaint along with interlocutory applications and written statements filed in the case. CPIO declined to provide information sought in the RTI application on the ground that only parties involved in the case are entitled to the order and documents pertaining to it.
In an appeal, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the application of the respondent. However on further appeal, CIC allowed the respondent's application. CIC held that as Section 22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect on other laws, CPIO was under an obligation to provide information to the respondent's RTI application.
The petitioner-CPIO contended that Regulation 20 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (CPA Regulations) prohibit third-parties from accessing information of documents related to NCDRC proceedings.
Regulation 21 relates to providing certified copies to parties involved in the proceedings and Regulation 22 provides for inspection of the case records by the parties.
Consumer Protection Regulations cannot be interpreted in restrictive manner
The Court observed that Regulation 21 and 22 neither explicitly address the rights of third parties not impose any specific prohibitions against access to information by third parties. It remarked “The absence of a specific prohibition in the CPA Regulations, regarding access to NCDRC records to third parties, should not be construed as an implicit prohibition.”
It noted that the absence of prohibition of third parties from obtaining documents under Regulation 21 should not be considered as a restriction, but instead as a gap in the regulatory framework.
It was of the view that such gap “…necessitates the application of RTI Act for access to information.” It thus stated that RTI Act serves as a 'legislative bridge' since CPA Regulations do not explicitly prohibit third-party access.
If Regulation 21 is interpreted as a prohibition on third-party access, it would render the CPA Regulations in conflict with the RTI Act, the Court stated. It remarked that CPA Regulations must be interpreted in a way that they align with the “…overarching goal of the RTI Act to enhance transparency and access to information.”
The Court referred to Section 22 of the RTI Act. The non-obstante clause of Section 22 provides that the RTI Act prevails over other laws in case of inconsistencies.
In view of this, the Court stated that any restrictive interpretation of Regulation 21 CPA would undermine the overarching mandate of the RTI Act.
Balance between right to information and confidentiality of judicial records
The Court emphasised the necessity to safeguard the privacy of litigants. As NCDRC handles sensitive and personal information of parties, it noted that there should be balance between public access to information and the confidentiality of judicial records.
It stated that the respondent's status as a third-party does not inherently entitle him to obtain copies from NCDRC proceedings. To strike a balance, it noted that third parties must submit a detailed application showing good cause.
“To maintain the confidentiality and to manage the potential for overwhelming and inappropriate requests that may inundate NCDRC if a complete free unrestricted access is given to third parties, it is prudent for this Court to mandate that any third party…submit a detailed application or affidavit when requesting information or certified copies showing good cause to receive such material.”
It remanded the matter back to the CPIO to assess the respondent's request. It directed the CPIO to assess the RTI application while balancing the need for transparency with the protection of individual privacy.
Case title: The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) vs A K Jain (W.P.(C) 3032/2016 & CM APPL. 12786/2016)