Plea In Jharkhand High Court Challenges Its RTI Rules Asking Applicants To Provide 'Motive' Behind Seeking Info, Notice Issued

The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday issued a notice on a writ petition challenging certain provisions of the High Court's Right to Information Rules as ultra vires the Central legislation.

The matter was heard by a division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, which sought a response from the Registrar General of High Court, directing him to explain within two weeks as to why the petition be not admitted.

In the petitioner's case, Rule 9(a)(i) and (b) of the Jharkhand High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 puts unnecessary and vague conditions for the supply of information, in complete contravention of Section 6(2), 7(9) and 22 of the RTI Act, 2005.

Filed through Advocate Shailesh Poddar, the petition argues that the Section 6(2) in the parent act clearly states that an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.

However, the impugned provision, it is averred, imposes an additional condition on the applicant to state the motive of obtaining such information, with positive assertion.

It is submitted that any rule brought under the aegis of the Parent Act must conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed. Moreover, if the provision fails to comply with the purpose of the parent Act, the rules would be void.

The pela refers to an 11-year-old decision of the Chief Information Commission, Delhi, in Shri Ajit Kumar Modi v. High Court of Jharkhand, which recommended measures to bring the Jharkhand High Court RTI Rules in consonance with the parent Act. It was held therein:

"Similarly, Rule 9 (a) (iii) (iv) and (v) are by implication contradictory to Section 7 (9), which demands that the information should ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought, except in certain cases identical to those mentioned in the above sub Sections to Section 9 (a) of the Jharkhand High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2007 but which under those Rules are not permitted to be provided if they can be so described, whereas Section 7 (9) gives no authority for exemption from disclosure but only an allowance in terms of the form in which the disclosure may be made."

However, it is submitted that despite a lapse of 11 years, the rule continues to exist and is being implemented to deny information sought under the Act.

Another contention in the petition pertains to Rule 9(b), which purportedly cast an unnecessary burden on the Public Information Officer to get permission from the Chief Justice or any other Judge before supplying the sought information.

It is submitted through the petition that the PIO under Section 8 of the RTI Act has been given the power to supply or deny any information without seeking any permission from any other authority. Being an independent authority, it is under no obligation to seek permission before supplying information. This rule puts a direct interference in the authority's independence. Also, it causes unnecessary delays in the supply of information by creating an additional chain of persons for the supply of information.

Case Title: Ravi Pratap Shahi v.  Registrar General of High Court of Jharkhand

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order