RTI Act | Should Documents Available In First Appeal Records Be Necessarily Filed At The Time Of Second Appeal? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a public interest litigation raising the issue as to whether documents available in records of the first appeal under Right to Information Act ought to be called again at the time of second appeal.

The order was passed by a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, after hearing counsel for the petitioner.

Briefly put, the petition has been filed by one Kishan Chand Jain, assailing the requirement imposed by Rules 8 and 9 of the RTI Rules, 2012 to file extensive documents alongwith the second appeal preferred before Central Information Commission. The petitioner claims that these procedural requirements create unnecessary hurdles for information seekers, particularly weaker section of the society, and result in appeals being returned without any decision on merits.

In support of his case, he points out that nearly 1,09,286 appeals were returned by the CIC between 2015 and June 5, 2024 for lack of required documentation.

It is stated that as per Rule 9 of the RTI Rules, failure to comply with Rule 8 (which requires filing of certain documents alongwith second appeal) results in the return of second appeal by CIC; as such, the Rules negate the right to second appeal conferred upon an information seeker u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act.

"All of the documents needed to the filed by an appellant under Rule 8 of the RTI Rules already constitute the part of the records maintained by the CPIOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs). Requiring appellants to resubmit these documents and to return the appeal for not resubmitting the documents leads to redundancy, and undermines the constitutional right of information seekers."

The petitioner argues that Rule 9 is not mandatory (as it says appeal 'may' be returned; not 'shall') and CIC's practice of returning second appeals for non-compliance with Rule 8 is unjust, improper and contextually unwarranted.

"...since the requirement of Rule 8 to file numerous documents is a procedural matter, it should not defeat/frustrate the substantive 'right to appeal' given under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, which is to give effect to and enforce the 'right to information' of a citizen", the petition adds.

Besides the CIC, the petitioner claims that State Information Commissions (SICs) also return second appeals filed before them under S. 19(3) for want of documents, as per the Rules made by the respective state governments. He cites the following rules made by governments of UP, Haryana and West Bengal:

• Rules 5 and 6 of the West Bengal Right to Information Rules, 2006

• Rule 6 of the Haryana Right to Information Rules, 2009

• Rule 7(2) of the UP Right to Information Rules, 2015

The reliefs sought by the petitioner are thus:

(i) Rule 9 of the RTI Rules be deemed non-mandatory and the practice of returning second appeals for non-compliance with Rule 8 be ceased;

(ii) A peoples-friendly system of online filing without documents (applicable to first appeals) be made applicable for second appeals;

(iii) In the alternative, Rules 8 and 9 of the RTI Rules, and similar rules made by the State Governments, be declared arbitrary, unconstitutional and invalid being violative of Sections 3, 19(3), 19(5) and 27(1) of the RTI Act;

(iv) Union/State Governments be directed to integrate and interlink the records of PIOs and FAAs with those of the CIC and SICs for seamless information sharing, eliminating the need for appellants to resubmit documents when filing second appeals.

Case Title: KISHAN CHAND JAIN Versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 402/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order