RTI and Judiciary

Why in news?

Delhi High Court recently held that RTI Act could not be resorted to in case the information sought for is related to judicial function of the Supreme Court.

What is the case?

• The court’s order came on a plea by the Supreme Court of India, through its Registrar.
• It had challenged an earlier order of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
• The CIC order had directed the apex court to answer the queries of a litigant as to why his SLP (Special Leave Petition) was dismissed.
• The SLP was regarding the termination of his services as a teacher, the challenge for which in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was dismissed.
• His petition in the high court and appeal in the apex court also failed, and the review petitions were also dismissed.
• Thereafter, he sought information under the RTI as to why his SLP was dismissed.
• And contended that the same had been decided against the principles of natural justice.

What is the High Court's rationale?

• Right To Information (RTI) Act would not override the Supreme Court Rules (SCR), when it comes to dissemination of information.

• Court emphasized that the judicial functioning of the supreme court of India is separate/ independent from its administrative functioning.
• Consequently, for administrative functioning of the Supreme Court, information can be provided under the RTI Act.
• And for judicial functioning of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Rules is the mechanism.
• It includes right of inspection, search of copies and would be applicable for access to the documents filed on the judicial side.
• The court denied the arguments that there was an inherent inconsistency between SCR and RTI Act.
• The high court further said that a Judge speaks only through the judgments or orders passed.
• And cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order.
• If any party feels aggrieved by the judgment passed, the remedy available is to challenge the same by a legally permissible mode.
• It stressed that the legislature could not make law to deprive the courts of their legitimate judicial functions conferred under the procedure established by law.

What are the defects with SCR?

• The Supreme Court Rules are not as effective a mechanism to access information as the RTI.
• Unlike the RTI Act, the SCR do not provide for:

1. a time frame for furnishing information
2. an appeal mechanism
3. penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information

• The Rules also make disclosures to citizens dependent upon “good cause shown”.
• In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI.
• It is thus argued that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act.

What are the implications of the ruling?

• The whole issue is that the Supreme Court Registry wants to provide information at its absolute discretion.
• The high court ruling signifies the continuing trend of disregard for the RTI by the judiciary.
• The judgment thus seems to be strengthening a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary.

Quick Fact

Supreme Court Rules

• Supreme Court Rules (SCR), 1966 have been framed under Article 145 of the Constitution of India.
• They provide for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court, and the rules have the effect of law.
• SCR provide for a mechanism for inspection and search of pleadings on payment of prescribed fees.
• The rules were re-issued with minor changes in 2014.

Good cause

• Good cause is defined in the legal sense as a sufficient reason for a judge to make a ruling.
• It denotes adequate or substantial grounds or reason to take a certain action, or to fail to take an action prescribed by law.
• The term “good cause,” however, is a broad one, and what constitutes a good cause is usually determined on a case-by-case basis and is thus relative.

Source: The Hindu, Live Law