CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONERversusHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER.

                        [2020] 5 S.C.R. 465                              465


            CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER                               A
                                  v.
         HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER.
                (Civil Appeal Nos.1966-1967 of 2020)
                         MARCH 04, 2020                                  B
              [R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA
                AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
       Right to Information Act, 2005 – s. 19 – Gujarat High Court
Rules, 1993 – rr. 149 to 154 – An RTI application was filed by
                                                                         C
respondent no. 2 seeking information pertaining to certain cases
along with all relevant documents and certified copies – The Public
Information Officer, Gujarat High Court informed respondent no.
2 that since he is not a party to the said proceedings, as per r. 151
of the Gujarat High Court Rules, his application should be
accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which the            D
certified copies are required and on making such application, he
will be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules
149 to 154 of the Rules, 1993 – The same was upheld by the Appellate
Authority Registrar Administration – In the second appeal by
respondent no. 2, the appellant-Chief Information commissioner
                                                                         E
directed Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court to
provide the information sought by respondent no. 2 – Challenging
the said order, respondent no. 1-High Court filed an application
before the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court passed
an interim order directing respondent no. 1 to provide information
sought by respondent no. 2 – However, the Division Bench of the          F
High Court set aside the order Chief Information Commissioner by
observing that when a particular field is governed by the rules which
are not declared ultra-vires, then there is no question of applying
the fresh rules and make the situation confusing – Thus, respondent
no. 2 has to file an affidavit disclosing the purpose for which the
                                                                         G
certified copies are required as per the High Court Rules and there
is no question of making applications under the RTI Act – On
appeal, held: The Gujarat High Court Rules neither prohibit nor
forbid dissemination of information or grant of certified copies of
records – R. 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a
third party to have access to the information/ obtaining the certified   H
                                 465
466            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/
      affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not
      inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely lays down
      a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for
      obtaining information – In the absence of inherent inconsistency
      between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding
B
      effect of RTI Act would not apply – The information to be accessed/
      certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the
      mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of
      the RTI Act shall not be resorted to – The decision of the Division
      bench of the High Court confirmed.
C           Dismissing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993
      requires a third party applicant seeking copies of documents in
      any civil or criminal proceedings to file an application/affidavit
      stating the reasons for which those documents are required. As
D     such, the High Court Rules do not obstruct a third party from
      obtaining copies of documents in any court proceedings or any
      document on the judicial side. It is not as if the information is
      denied or refused to the applicant. All that is required to be done
      is to apply for the certified copies with application/affidavit stating
E     the reasons for seeking the information. The reason insisting
      upon the third party for stating the grounds for obtaining certified
      copies is to satisfy the court that the information is sought for
      bona fide reasons or to effectuate public interest. The information
      is held by the High Court as a trustee for the litigants in order to
      adjudicate upon the matter and administer justice. The same
F     cannot be permitted by the third party to have access to such
      personal information of the parties or information given by the
      Government in the proceedings. Lest, there would be misuse of
      process of court and the information and it would reach
      unmanageable levels. If the High Court Rules framed under
G     Article 225 provide a mechanism for invoking the said right in a
      particular manner, the said mechanism should be preserved and
      followed. The said mechanism cannot be abandoned or
      discontinued merely because the general law – RTI Act has been
      enacted. [Para 27][482-H; 483-A-D]

H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                       467
                GUJARAT AND ANR.

      2. The object of the RTI Act itself recognizes the need to       A
protect the institutional interest and also to make optimum use
of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of
sensitive information. The procedure to obtain certified copies
under the High Court Rules is not cumbersome and the procedure
is very simple – filing of an application/affidavit along with the
                                                                       B
requisite court fee stating the reasons for seeking the information.
The information held by the High Court on the judicial side are
the “personal information” of the litigants like title cases and
family court matters, etc. Under the guise of seeking information
under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to be abused
and information not to be misused. [Para 28][483-E-F]                  C
      3. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, if the records are received by the
High Court from tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it
may contain the details disclosed by an assessee in his Income
Tax Return. As held in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central          D
Information Commissioner and Others (2013) 1 SSC 212, the details
disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Return are personal
information which stands exempted from disclosure unless it
involves a larger public interest and the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information. While seeking
information or certified copies of the documents, the High Court       E
Rules which require the third party to a proceeding to file an
affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, the same
cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI
Act in as much as the rejection if any, made thereafter will be for
the very reasons as stipulated in Section 8 of the RTI Act.            F
[Para 29][483-G-H; 484-A-B]
      4. This Court fully endorse views of the Delhi High Court
in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. RS Misra (2017) 244
DLT 179. When the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism
that the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing an     G
application/affidavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be
resorted. [Para 32][486-E]
     5. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RTI Act provides that
every public authority to take steps to provide as much
                                                                       H
468            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through
      various means of communications including internet, so that the
      public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain
      information. Suo motu disclosure of information on important
      aspects of working of a public authority is therefore, an essential
      component of information regime. The judgments and orders
B
      passed by the High Courts are all available in the website of the
      respective High Courts and any person can have access to these
      judgments and orders. Likewise, the status of the pending cases
      and the orders passed by the High Courts in exercise of its power
      under Section 235 of the Constitution of India i.e. control over
C     the subordinate courts like transfers, postings and promotions
      are also made available in the website. In order to maintain the
      confidentiality of the documents and other information pertaining
      to the litigants to the proceedings and to maintain proper balance,
      Rules of the High Court insist upon the third party to file an
      application/affidavit to obtain information/certified copies of the
D
      documents, lest such application would reach unmanageable
      proportions apart from the misuse of such information.
      [Para 33][486-F-H; 487-A-B]
             6. Section 31 of the RTI Act repeals only the Freedom of
      Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. If the intention of the
E     legislature was to repeal any other Acts or laws which deal with
      the dissemination of information to an applicant, then the RTI
      Act would have clearly specified so. In the absence of any
      provision to this effect, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be
      interpreted so as to attribute a meaning to them which was not
F     intended by the legislature. In the RTI Act, there is no specific
      reference to the rules framed by the various High Courts or any
      other special law excepting the Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
      [Para 37][488-E-F]
            7. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules requires a
G     third party to the proceedings to file an affidavit and state the
      reasons for seeking access to the information or grant of certified
      copies of records and there is no inconsistency of the High Court
      Rules with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Gujarat High Court
      Rules neither prohibit nor forbid dissemination of information or
      grant of certified copies of records. The difference is only insofar
H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                        469
                GUJARAT AND ANR.

as the stipulation of filing an application/affidavit or payment of     A
fees, etc. is concerned, there is no inconsistency between the
two provisions and therefore, the RTI Act has no overriding effect
over Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules. [Para 38]
[488-G-H; 489-A]
      8. This Court summarises the conclusion as follows:-              B
      (i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a
third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified
copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/
affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely lays        C
down a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees,
etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherent
inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other
law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
      (ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the       D
judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under
the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be
resorted to. [Para 43][490-F-H; 491-A-B]
      Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of
      India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal 2019 (16) SCALE                  E
      40; Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v.
      Paras Jain (2019) SCC Online SC 764; Girish
      Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information
      Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212 : [2012] 8
      SCR 1097 – referred to.
                                                                        F
      The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra
      (2017) 244 DLT 179 – approved.
      State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar
      (Establishment) v. Karnataka Information Commission
      and Another (W.P. No.26763 of 2013 dated
                                                                        G
      09.01.2019) – referred to.
      Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak
      H. Satya & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 781 : [2011] 14 SCR
      328; R. S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1
      SCC 335 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387 – relied on.
                                                                        H
470             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A                              Case Law Reference
      2019 (16) SCALE 40                    referred to             Para 9
      [2012] 8 SCR 1097                     referred to             Para 29
      [2011] 14 SCR 328                     relied on               Para 30
B     [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387               relied on               Para 36
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1966-
      1967 of 2020.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2014 of the High Court
      of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 in
C
      Special Civil Application No. 7880 of 2013.
            A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG (A.C.).
            Pritesh Kapoor, Sr. Adv., Salvador S. Rebello, Ms. Suhasini Sen,
      Ms. A. Raul, Neeleshwar Pavani, Ms. Riya Soni, Ms. Akansha Jain,
D     Ms. Shivikka Agarwal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Kabir Hathi, Ms. Shikha
      Sandhu, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A.
      Rajarajan, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva,
      Ms. Neha Rathi, Jatin Bhardwaj, Rahul Gupta, M/s.Alice Raj, Advs. for
      the appearing parties.
E           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            R. BANUMATHI, J.
            1. Leave granted.
             2. The point falling for determination in this appeal is as regards
F     the right of a third party to apply for certified copies to be obtained from
      the High Court by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act
      without resorting to Gujarat High Court Rules prescribed by the High
      Court.
            3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-
G           An RTI application dated 05.04.2010 was filed by respondent No.2
      seeking information pertaining to the following cases – Civil Application
      No.5517 of 2003 and Civil Application No.8072 of 1989 along with all
      relevant documents and certified copies. In reply, by letter dated
      29.04.2010, Public Information Officer, Gujarat High Court informed
      respondent No.2 that for obtaining required copies, he should make an
H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                               471
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

application personally or through his advocate on affixing court fees          A
stamp of Rs.3/- with requisite fee to the “Deputy Registrar”. It was
further stated that as respondent No.2 is not a party to the said
proceedings, as per Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, his
application should be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds
for which the certified copies are required and on making such application,
                                                                               B
he will be supplied the certified copies of the documents as per Rules
149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993.
       4. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred Appeal No.84 of
2010 before the Appellate Authority-Registrar Administration under
Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”).
The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2010 on the ground             C
that for obtaining certified copies, the alternative efficacious remedy is
already available under the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and that
under the provisions of RTI Act, no certified copies can be provided.
        5. Respondent No.2 then filed Second Appeal No.1437 of 2010-
11 before the Appellant-Chief Information Commissioner and notice was          D
sent to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1-High Court filed its response
reiterating the position that there are provisions under Rules 149 to 154
of the Gujarat High Court Rules for anybody who wants to obtain the
certified copies as per which, application/affidavit should be filed stating
the grounds for which the documents are required and with requisite            E
court fee stamps. Respondent No.1 stated that despite the letter dated
02.07.2010 by the Deputy Registrar (CC Section), Decree Department,
Gujarat High Court to respondent No.2 informing him of the procedure
for getting certified copies, respondent No.2 has not made application as
per the rules of the High Court and that the Public Information Officer
cannot be compelled to breach the High Court Rules and hence, the              F
appeal filed before the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) is liable
to be dismissed. Relying upon Sections 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act, the
appellant-Chief Information Commissioner vide its order dated 04.04.2013
directed Public Information Officer of the Gujarat High Court to provide
the information sought by respondent No.2 within twenty days.                  G
      6. Challenging the order of Chief Information Commissioner,
respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Application No.7880 of 2013 before
the High Court. The learned Single Judge, while admitting the petition,
passed an interim order dated 11.10.2013 directing respondent No.1 to
provide the information sought by respondent No.2 within four weeks.           H
472             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     The learned Single Judge held that the legality and validity of the direction
      given by the appellant and the right of respondent No.2 to receive the
      copies under RTI Act will be considered at the stage of final hearing. It
      was however clarified that supply of information by respondent No.1
      shall not be construed as acceptance of applicability of RTI Act to the
      High Court.
B
              7. Being aggrieved by the interim order, respondent No.1-High
      Court preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1348 of 2013 before the
      Division Bench contending that the party who seeks certified copies has
      to make an application along with the copying charges and requisite
      court fees stamp as per Rules 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court
C     Rules. As per the Rules, if the certified copy is sought by a person who
      is not a party to the litigation, his application has to be accompanied by
      an affidavit stating therein the purpose for which he requires the certified
      copies. Vide impugned order, the High Court allowed the Letters Patent
      Appeal holding that when a particular field is governed by the rules
D     which are not declared ultra-vires, then there is no question of applying
      the fresh rules and make the situation confusing. The High Court held
      that in the light of the High Court Rules, certified copies may be given on
      payment of charges as per the Rules and also the applicant (respondent
      No.2) has to file an affidavit disclosing the purpose for which the certified
      copies are required and there is no question of making an application
E     under the RTI Act. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Chief
      Information Commissioner by observing that when a copy is demanded
      by any person, the same has to be in accordance with the Rules of the
      High Court on the subject.
             8. As the question involved is concerned with all the High Courts
F     and having regard to the importance of the matter, we have requested
      Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG)
      to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court which the learned ASG
      readily agreed. Mr. Nadkarni collected information from all the High
      Courts and filed a compilation of the information obtained by him about
G     the Rules framed by various High Courts in exercise of their power
      under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and under Section 28 of
      the Right to Information Act, 2005.
            9. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned Senior counsel for the appellant
      has contended that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act specifically provides that
H     an applicant making a request for information shall not be required to
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                                 473
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

give reasons for requesting the information sought and whereas under             A
the Gujarat High Court Rules, applications made by third parties seeking
copies of the documents shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the
grounds on which they are required and there is direct inconsistency
between the provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules,
1993. It was submitted that in view of the inconsistency between the
                                                                                 B
provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules, harmonious
construction between the two is not possible and in the event of conflict
between the provisions of RTI Act and any other law made by the
Parliament or State Legislature or any other authority, the former must
prevail. It was submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act specifically
provides that the provisions of the RTI Act will have an overriding effect       C
over any other laws for the time being in force. The learned Senior
counsel submitted that the High Court Rules have been framed in exercise
of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India which would
be subject to any other law and the non-obstante clause in Section 22
of the RTI Act shows that the provisions of the RTI Act would override
                                                                                 D
the High Court Rules. The learned Senior counsel inter alia relied upon
the recent judgment of the Constitution Bench in Central Public
Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra
Agrawal2019 (16) SCALE 40.
       10. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the
intervenors submitted that there can be no apprehension that allowing            E
an applicant to seek information from the High Court under RTI Act can
prejudicially affect the privacy/rights of other parties or the administration
of justice. Reiterating the submission of Senior counsel, Mr. Preetesh
Kapoor, Mr. Prashant Bhushan submitted that Rule 151 of the Gujarat
High Court Rules is not in consonance with Section 6(2) of the RTI Act           F
and the provisions of RTI Act prevails over the relevant Rules of Public
Authorities/Gujarat High Court Rules. Taking us through Section 22 of
the RTI Act, learned counsel submitted that RTI Act is a general law
made by the Parliament with the avowed object of dissemination of
information and ensuring transparency in the functioning of the Public
Authorities and in view of non obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTI          G
Act, in case of any conflict regarding “access to information from public
authorities”, the provisions of RTI Act will prevail over any other law.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon
Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain 2019 SCC
Online SC 764 and the Constitution Bench judgment in Subhash                     H
Chandra Agrawal.
474             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A            11. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, learned counsel appearing for
      respondent No.1-High Court of Gujarat submitted that the Gujarat High
      Court Rules 149 to 154 do not stipulate anything contra to Section 22 of
      the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rule 151 is in consonance with
      the RTI Act. The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 was
      only informed to make an application as per the procedure stipulated
B
      under the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and since respondent No.2
      was not a party to the proceedings, he was informed that his application
      shall be accompanied with an affidavit stating the grounds for which the
      certified copies are required. The learned counsel submitted that when
      an efficacious remedy is available under Rule 151 of the Gujarat High
C     Court Rules which is in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, the
      provisions of the RTI Act cannot be invoked and the High Court rightly
      held that there is no question of making an application under the RTI Act
      and rightly quashed the order of the appellant-Chief Information
      Commissioner.
D             12. Mr. Nadkarni, learned amicus has taken us through the
      information received from the various High Courts and submitted that in
      exercise of power under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the
      High Court Rules are framed and the Rules provide for a mode for
      furnishing of information by way of certified copies to persons who are
      party to the litigation after making payment of requisite fees. It was
E     submitted that insofar as third parties i.e. persons who are not party to
      the litigation are concerned, the same is also provided under the Rules, if
      the third party files an affidavit stating the reasonable grounds to receive
      such information/certified copies. The learned amicus submitted that
      there is no inconsistency between the RTI Act and the Rules framed by
F     the High Court so as to furnish information. It was also submitted that
      although Section 22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect over any
      other laws, in case there are inconsistencies, Section 22 of the RTI Act
      does not contemplate to override those legislations which also aim to
      ensure access to information. The learned amicus submitted that so far
      as the information on the judicial side of the High Court, the Rules framed
G     by the High Court provide for dissemination of information to third party
      as per the High Court Rules by filing an application with requisite fee
      and filing an affidavit stating the grounds. Insofar as the information on
      the administrative side of the High Court, the learned amicus submitted
      that access to such information could be had through the Rules framed
H     by the various High Courts and the Rules framed under the RTI Act by
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                                  475
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the High Courts. Drawing our attention to the judgment of the Delhi               A
High Court in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. RS Misra
(2017) 244 DLT 179 and judgment of the Karnataka High Court in
Karnataka Information Commissioner v. State Public Information
Officer and another WP(C) No.9418 of 2008, the learned amicus
submitted that the High Courts have taken a consistent view that the
                                                                                  B
information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the High Court Rules and once any
information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under the
Statute or the Rules framed, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be
resorted to.
       13. We have carefully considered the contentions and perused               C
the impugned judgment and materials on record. The following points
arise for consideration in this appeal:-
      (i)   Whether Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993
            stipulating that for providing copy of documents to the third
            parties, they are required to file an affidavit stating the reasons   D
            for seeking certified copies, suffers from any inconsistency
            with the provisions of RTI Act?

      (ii) When there are two machineries to provide information/
           certified copies – one under the High Court Rules and another          E
           under the RTI Act, in the absence of any inconsistency in the
           High Court Rules, whether the provisions of RTI Act can be
           resorted to for obtaining certified copy/information?
     14. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 explains the
meaning of the term “information” which reads as under:-                          F
       2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless, the context otherwise
requires,-
      ………
       (f) “information” means any material in any form, including
records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,            G
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models,
data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any
private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any
other law for the time being in force;
                                                                                  H
476            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A           15. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority”. The
      term “public authority” has been given very wide meaning in the RTI
      Act. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act reads as under:-
             2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless, the context otherwise
      requires,-
B           ………
             (h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution
      of self-government established or constituted,—
            (a) by or under the Constitution;
C           (b) by any other law made by Parliament;
            (c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
           (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
      Government, and includes any—
D              (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
               (ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed,
               directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
               Government;
            16. Section 2(i) of the RTI Act defines “record” which is an
E     inclusive definition. Section 2(j) explains “right to information”.
      Sections 2(i) and 2(j) of the RTI Act read as under:-
             2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless, the context otherwise
      requires,-

F           ………
            (i) “record” includes—
               (i)   any document, manuscript and file;
               (ii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a
                    document;
G
               (iii) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such
                     microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
               (iv) any other material produced by a computer or any other
                    device;
H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                                 477
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      (j) “right to information” means the right to information                  A
accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any
public authority and includes the right to—
          (i)   inspection of work, documents, records;
          (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or
               records;                                                          B

          (iii) taking certified samples of material;
          (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies,
               tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or
               through printouts where such information is stored in a           C
               computer or in any other device;
         17. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act provides for exemption from
disclosure of information. Right to information is subject to exceptions
or exemptions stated in Section 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. There
are ten clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Clause (a) of sub-section        D
(1) of Section 8 deals with information that would compromise the
sovereignty or integrity of the country and like matter; clause (b) covers
any information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by
any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute
contempt of court; clause (c) covers such matters which would cause a
breach of privilege of the Parliament or the State Legislatures; clause          E
(d) protects information of commercial nature and trade secrets and
intellectual property; clause (e) exempts the disclosure of any information
available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure
of such information; clause (f) prevents information being disseminated,         F
if it is received in confidence from any foreign Government; clause (g)
exempts the disclosure of any information which endanger the life or
physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or
assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
clause (h) bars access to such information which would impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;            G
clause (i) forbids records and papers relating to deliberations of ministers
and officers of the executive being made available, subject to a proviso;
and, clause (j) prohibits disclosure of personal information unless there
is an element of public interest involved.
                                                                                 H
478            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A             18. In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of
      India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal2019 (16) SCALE 40, the
      Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the Central Information
      Commissioner directing the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to furnish
      information as to the assets declared by the Hon’ble Judges of the
      Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench held that such disclosure would
B
      not, in any way, impinge upon the personal information and right to privacy
      of the Judges. The fiduciary relationship rule in terms of Section 8(1)(e)
      of the RTI Act was held inapplicable. Learned counsel appearing for the
      parties extensively relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in
      Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Since the issue before us is the High Court
C     Rules vis-a-vis., the RTI Act, we do not propose to refer the various
      observations copiously relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for
      the parties.
             19. Article 124 relates to the establishment and constitution of the
      Supreme Court. Article 124 states that the Supreme Court of India
D     consist of Chief Justice of India and other Judges. Under Article 145 of
      the Constitution, the Supreme Court may, from time to time, with the
      approval of the President, make Rules for regulating generally the
      Practice and Procedure of the Court. In exercise of the powers under
      Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has framed “Supreme
      Court Rules”. Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules lays down the
E     procedure in respect of grant of certified copies of pleadings, judgments,
      documents, decrees or orders, deposition of the witnesses, etc. to the
      parties to the litigation and also to the third parties. The parties to a
      proceeding in the Supreme Court shall be entitled to obtain certified
      copies by making appropriate application and the court fees payable as
F     per the “Supreme Court Rules”. So far as the third parties are concerned,
      as per Order XIII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, the court on the
      application of a person who is not a party to the case, appeal or matter,
      pending or disposed of, may on good cause shown, allow such person to
      receive such copies as is or are mentioned in the Order XIII Rule 1 of
      the Supreme Court Rules. Thus, as per the Supreme Court Rules also,
G     the third party is required to show good cause for obtaining certified
      copies of the documents or orders.
             20. Article 216 relates to the constitution of High Courts. Every
      High Court consists of a Chief Justice and other Judges as the President
      of India may from time to time appoint. The High Court Rules are framed
H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                                 479
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The procedure followed           A
for furnishing of copies/certified copies of orders/documents etc., being
information on the judicial side, are governed by the Rules framed by the
High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the
RTI Act is concerned, in exercise of the powers under Section 28 of the
RTI Act, various High Courts have framed the Rules under RTI Act and
                                                                                 B
the information on the administrative side of the High Court can be
accessed as per the Rules framed by the High Courts under RTI Act.
       21. In the present case, we are concerned with Gujarat High
Court Rules. Grant of certified copies to parties to the litigation and third
parties are governed by Rules 149 to 154 of Gujarat High Court Rules.
As per the Rules, on filing of application with prescribed court fees            C
stamp, litigants/parties to the proceedings are entitled to receive the copies
of documents/orders/judgments etc. The third parties who are not parties
in any of the proceedings, shall not be given the copies of judgments and
other documents without the order of the Assistant Registrar. As per
Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, the applications requesting            D
for copies of documents/judgments made by third parties, shall be
accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds for which they are
required. Rule 151 reads as under:-
       “151. Parties to proceedings entitled to copies; application by third
       parties to be accompanied by affidavits. Copies of documents in           E
       any Civil or Criminal Proceedings and copies of judgment of the
       High Court shall not be given to persons other than the parties
       thereto without the order of the Assistant Registrar. Applications
       for copies of documents or judgment made by third parties shall
       be accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds on which they
       are required, provided that such affidavit shall be dispensed with        F
       in case of applications made by or on behalf of the Government
       of the Union, the Government of any State or the Government of
       any foreign State.”
       22. The learned amicus has obtained information from various
High Courts as to the procedure followed by the High Courts for                  G
furnishing certified copies of orders/judgments/documents. As per the
Rules framed by various High Courts, parties to the proceedings are
entitled to obtain certified copies of orders/judgments/documents on filing
of application along with prescribed court fees stamp. Insofar as
furnishing of certified copies to third parties, the Rules framed by the         H
480             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     High Courts stipulate that the certified copies of documents/orders or
      judgments or copies of proceedings would be furnished to the third parties
      only on the orders passed by the court or the Registrar, on being satisfied
      about the reasonable cause and bona fide of the reasons seeking the
      information/certified copies of the documents. We may refer to the
      Rules framed by the High Courts of Bombay, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh,
B
      Karnataka, Madras and various other High Courts which stipulate similar
      provisions for furnishing information/certified copies to third parties. The
      Rules stipulate that for the third parties to have access to the information
      on the judicial side or obtaining certified copies of documents/judgments/
      orders, the third parties will have to make an application stating the reasons
C     for which they are required and on payment of necessary court fees
      stamp. As pointed out earlier, Supreme Court Rules also stipulate that
      certified copies of documents or orders could be supplied to the third
      parties only on being satisfied about the reasonable cause. Be it noted,
      the access to the information or certified copies of the documents/
      judgments/orders/court proceedings are not denied to the third parties.
D
      The Rules of the High Court only stipulate that the third parties will have
      to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for which the
      information/certified copies are required. The Rules framed by the
      Gujarat High Court are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI
      Act. There is no inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act
E     with the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers
      under Article 225 of the Constitution of India.
             23. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned Senior counsel for the appellant
      has submitted that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act grants a substantive right
      and the person who is seeking information/copies is not required to give
F     any reason and this right cannot be curtailed or whittled down by
      procedural laws framed by the High Court under Article 225 of the
      Constitution of India. In support of his contention that the rules framed
      by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 225 cannot make
      or curtail any substantive law, reliance was placed upon Raj Kumar
      Yadav v. Samir Kumar Mahaseth and Others (2005) 3 SCC 601.
G     Learned Senior counsel further submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act
      specifically provides that the provisions of the RTI Act will have an
      overriding effect over other laws for the time being in force. It was
      therefore, submitted that in the event of any conflict between the
      provisions of the RTI Act and any other laws made by the Parliament or
H     a State Legislature or any other authority, the provisions of the RTI Act
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                              481
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

must prevail and therefore, the RTI Act would prevail over the rules          A
framed by the High Court. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for
the intervention applicants also reiterated the same submission.
       24. In order to consider the contentions urged by the learned Senior
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, let us briefly refer
to the various categories of information held by the High Court, which        B
are broadly as under:-
      (a) information held by the High Court relating to the parties to
          the litigation/proceedings – pleadings, documents and other
          materials and memo of grounds raised by the parties;
      (b) orders and judgments passed by the High Court, notes of             C
          proceedings, etc.;
      (c) In exercise of power of superintendence over the other courts
          and tribunals, information received in the records submitted/
          called for by those courts and tribunals like subordinate
          judiciary, various tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,    D
          Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other
          tribunals;
      (d) information on the administrative side of the High Court viz.
          appointments, transfers and postings of the judicial officers,
          staff members of the High Court and the district judiciary,         E
          disciplinary action taken against the judicial officers and the
          staff members and such other information relating to the
          administrative work.
      (e) Correspondence by the High Court with the Supreme Court,
          Government and with the district judiciary, etc.;                   F
                                   and
      (f) information on the administrative side as to the decision taken
          by the collegium of the High Court in making recommendations
          of the Judges to be appointed to the High Court; information
          as to the assets of the sitting Judges held by the Chief Justice    G
          of the High Court.
      25. Information under the categories (a), (b) and (c) and other
information on the judicial side can be accessed/certified copies of
documents and orders could be obtained by the parties to the proceedings
                                                                              H
482            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     in terms of the High Court Rules and the parties to the proceedings are
      entitled to the same. So far as the third parties are concerned, as of
      right, they are not entitled to access the information/obtain the certified
      copies of documents, orders and other proceedings. As per rules framed
      by the High Court, a third party can obtain the certified copies of the
      documents, orders or judgments or can have access to the information
B
      only by filing an application/affidavit and by stating the reason for which
      the information/copies of documents or orders are required. Insofar as
      on the administrative side i.e. categories (d), (e) and (f), one can have
      access to the information or copies of the documents could be obtained
      under the rules framed by the various High Courts or under the rules
C     framed by the High Court under the RTI Act. Insofar as the disclosure
      of information as to the assets of the Judges held by the Chief Justice of
      the High Court, the same is now covered by the judgment of the
      Constitution Bench reported in Central Public Information Officer,
      Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal2019 (16)
      SCALE 40.
D
             26. The preamble to the RTI Act suggests that the Act was enacted
      “to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every
      public authority…….”. The Act was enacted by keeping in view the
      right of “an informed citizenry and transparency of information
      which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption
E     and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable
      to the governed…..”. The preamble opens with a reference to the
      Constitution having established a democratic republic and the need
      therefore, for an informed citizenry. The preamble reveals that legislature
      was conscious of the likely conflict with other public interest including
F     efficient operations of the Governments and optimum use of limited fiscal
      resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information
      and the necessity to harmonise these conflicting interests. A citizen of
      India has every right to ask for any information subject to the limitation
      prescribed under the Act. The right to seek information is only to fulfill
      the objectives of the Act laid down in the preamble, that is, to promote
G     transparency of information.
             27. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 requires a
      third party applicant seeking copies of documents in any civil or criminal
      proceedings to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for which
      those documents are required. As such, the High Court Rules do not
H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                                  483
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

obstruct a third party from obtaining copies of documents in any court            A
proceedings or any document on the judicial side. It is not as if the
information is denied or refused to the applicant. All that is required to
be done is to apply for the certified copies with application/affidavit stating
the reasons for seeking the information. The reason insisting upon the
third party for stating the grounds for obtaining certified copies is to
                                                                                  B
satisfy the court that the information is sought for bona fide reasons or
to effectuate public interest. The information is held by the High Court
as a trustee for the litigants in order to adjudicate upon the matter and
administer justice. The same cannot be permitted by the third party to
have access to such personal information of the parties or information
given by the Government in the proceedings. Lest, there would be misuse           C
of process of court and the information and it would reach unmanageable
levels. If the High Court Rules framed under Article 225 provide a
mechanism for invoking the said right in a particular manner, the said
mechanism should be preserved and followed. The said mechanism
cannot be abandoned or discontinued merely because the general law –
                                                                                  D
RTI Act has been enacted.
        28. As discussed earlier, the object of the RTI Act itself recognizes
the need to protect the institutional interest and also to make optimum
use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of
sensitive information. The procedure to obtain certified copies under the
High Court Rules is not cumbersome and the procedure is very simple –             E
filing of an application/affidavit along with the requisite court fee stating
the reasons for seeking the information. The information held by the
High Court on the judicial side are the “personal information” of the
litigants like title cases and family court matters, etc. Under the guise of
seeking information under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to         F
be abused and information not to be misused.
       29. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, if the records are received by the High Court from
tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it may contain the details
disclosed by an assessee in his Income Tax Return. As held in Girish              G
Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and
Others (2013) 1 SSC 212, the details disclosed by a person in his Income
Tax Return are personal information which stands exempted from
disclosure unless it involves a larger public interest and the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such information. While seeking
                                                                                  H
484             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     information or certified copies of the documents, the High Court Rules
      which require the third party to a proceeding to file an affidavit stating
      the reasons for seeking the information, the same cannot be said to be
      inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act in as much as the rejection
      if any, made thereafter will be for the very reasons as stipulated in Section
      8 of the RTI Act.
B
             30. Considering the implementation of RTI Act and observing that
      the existing mechanism for invoking the said right should be preserved
      and operated, in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v.
      Shaunak H. Satya and Others (2011) 8 SCC 781, the Supreme Court
      held as under:-
C
            “24. One of the objects of democracy is to bring about
            transparency of information to contain corruption and bring about
            accountability. But achieving this object does not mean that other
            equally important public interests including efficient functioning
            of the governments and public authorities, optimum use of limited
D           fiscal resources, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
            information, etc. are to be ignored or sacrificed. The object of the
            RTI Act is to harmonise the conflicting public interests, that is,
            ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and containing
            corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the
E           revelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm or
            adversely affect other public interests which include efficient
            functioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal
            resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
            information, on the other hand. While Sections 3 and 4 seek to
            achieve the first objective, Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve
F           the second objective.
            25. Therefore, when Section 8 exempts certain information from
            being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the
            right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting
            other public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation
G           of democratic ideals. Therefore, in dealing with information not
            falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent authorities
            under the RTI Act will not read the exemptions in Section 8 in a
            restrictive manner but in a practical manner so that the other public
            interests are preserved and the RTI Act attains a fine balance
H           between its goal of attaining transparency of information and
            safeguarding the other public interests.”
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                              485
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

       31. While examining the issue of where two mechanisms exist            A
for obtaining the information i.e. the Supreme Court Rules and the RTI
Act, in The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra (2017)
244 DLT 179, the Delhi High Court held that “once any information
can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another
statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to.”
                                                                              B
In (2017) 244 DLT 179,the Delhi High Court held as under:-
      “53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted
      only to make accessible to the citizens the information with the
      public authorities which W.P.(C) 3530/2011 Page 22 of 36 hitherto
      was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does
      any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act      C
      to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public
      authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for
      making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules,
      regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information
      which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can            D
      be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to
      multiply the modes of accessing information.
      54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can
      be accessed through the mechanism provided under another
      statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to       E
      as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of
      RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the
      provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not
      actuated to achieve transparency.
      55. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act reveals that the said Act is            F
      concerned only with that information, which is under the exclusive
      control of the ‘public authority’. Providing copies/certified copies
      is not separate from providing information. The SCR not only
      deal with providing ‘certified copies’ of judicial records but also
      deal with providing ‘not a certified copy’ or simply a ‘copy’ of the
      document. The certification of the records is done by the Assistant     G
      Registrar/Branch Officer or any officer on behalf of the Registrar.
      In the opinion of this Court, in case of a statute which contemplates
      dissemination of information as provided for by the Explanation to
      Section 4 of the RTI Act then in such situation, public will have
      minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain such                 H
      information.
486            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A           56. There are other provisions of the RTI Act which support the
            said position, namely, Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) which contemplate
            that if an information is disseminated then the public will have
            minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. In
            the present case, the dissemination of information under the
            provisions of the SCR squarely fits into the definition of
B
            “disseminated” as provided in the aforesaid Explanation to Section
            7(9) and the Preamble contemplate a bar for providing information
            if it „disproportionally diverts the resources of the public authority”.
            57. Section 4(2) also provides that it shall be constant endeavour
            of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the
C           requirements of subSection (1) thereof and to provide as much
            information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through
            various means of communications including intervals so that the
            public has minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain
            information.” [Underlining added]
D           The same view was taken up by the Karnataka High Court in
      State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar
      (Establishment) v. Karnataka Information Commission and Another
      WP No.26763 of 2013 dated 09.01.2019.
             32. We fully endorse above views of the Delhi High Court. When
E     the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/
      certified copies can be obtained by filing an application/affidavit, the
      provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted.
             33. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RTI Act provides that
      every public authority to take steps to provide as much information suo
F     motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of
      communications including internet, so that the public have minimum resort
      to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. Suo motu disclosure of
      information on important aspects of working of a public authority is
      therefore, an essential component of information regime. The judgments
G     and orders passed by the High Courts are all available in the website of
      the respective High Courts and any person can have access to these
      judgments and orders. Likewise, the status of the pending cases and the
      orders passed by the High Courts in exercise of its power under Section
      235 of the Constitution of India i.e. control over the subordinate courts
      like transfers, postings and promotions are also made available in the
H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                                487
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

website. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the documents and          A
other information pertaining to the litigants to the proceedings and to
maintain proper balance, Rules of the High Court insist upon the third
party to file an application/affidavit to obtain information/certified copies
of the documents, lest such application would reach unmanageable
proportions apart from the misuse of such information.
                                                                                B
       34. Section 22 of the RTI Act lays down that the provisions of the
RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the
time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any
law other than RTI Act. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has
submitted that since the requirement under Rule 151 of the Gujarat High         C
Court Rules of filing an affidavit stating the grounds for seeking the
information is directly contrary to Section 6(2) of the RTI Act and there
is direct inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and the
Gujarat High Court Rules and in the event of conflict between the
provisions of the RTI Act and any other law made by the Parliament or           D
a State Legislature or any other authority, the RTI Act must prevail.
       35. In the non obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTI Act,
three categories have been mentioned:- (i) the Official Secrets Act, 1923;
and (ii) any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) any instrument
having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. In case of              E
inconsistency of any law with the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, overriding effect has been given to the provisions of the Right to
Information Act. Section 31 of the RTI Act which is a repealing clause
repeals only the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws.
The Right to Information Act has not repealed the Official Secrets Act
or any of the laws providing confidentiality which prohibits the authorities    F
to disclose information. Therefore, all those enactments including Official
Secrets Act, 1923 continue to be in force. This Act however, has an
overriding effect to the extent they are inconsistent.
      36. The non-obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean an
implied repeal of the High Court Rules and Orders framed under Article          G
225 of the Constitution of India; but only has an overriding effect in case
of inconsistency. A special enactment or rule cannot be held to be
overridden by a later general enactment simply because the latter opens
up with a non-obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistency
between the two legislations. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the      H
488             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka
      (1992) 1 SCC 335 wherein, the Supreme Court held as under:-
            “38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC
            127, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed
            thus :
B           “As mentioned hereinbefore if the scheme was held to be valid,
            then the question what is the general law and what is the special
            law and which law in case of conflict would prevail would have
            arisen and that would have necessitated the application of the
            principle “generalia specialibus non derogant”. The general
C           rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is
            that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior
            special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two
            following conditions is satisfied:
            (i) The two are inconsistent with each other.
D           (ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier
            enactment.
            If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even
            though general, would prevail.”
             37. As pointed out earlier, Section 31 of the RTI Act repeals only
E
      the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. If the intention
      of the legislature was to repeal any other Acts or laws which deal with
      the dissemination of information to an applicant, then the RTI Act would
      have clearly specified so. In the absence of any provision to this effect,
      the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted so as to attribute a
F     meaning to them which was not intended by the legislature. In the RTI
      Act, there is no specific reference to the rules framed by the various
      High Courts or any other special law excepting the Freedom of
      Information Act, 2002.
            38. As discussed earlier, Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules
G     requires a third party to the proceedings to file an affidavit and state the
      reasons for seeking access to the information or grant of certified copies
      of records and there is no inconsistency of the High Court Rules with
      the provisions of the RTI Act. The Gujarat High Court Rules neither
      prohibit nor forbid dissemination of information or grant of certified copies
      of records. The difference is only insofar as the stipulation of filing an
H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                                489
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

application/affidavit or payment of fees, etc. is concerned, there is no        A
inconsistency between the two provisions and therefore, the RTI Act
has no overriding effect over Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules.
        39. Ten categories of information are exempted from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(a) to (j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) excludes
disclosure of personal information, the disclosure of which:- (i) has no        B
relationship to any public activity or interest; or (ii) would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, in both
the cases, the Central Public Information Officer or the appellate authority
may order disclosure of such information, if they are satisfied that larger
public interest justifies disclosure. This would imply that personal
information which has some relationship to any public activity or interest      C
may be liable to be disclosed. An invasion of privacy may be held to be
justified if the larger public interest so warrants.
       40. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side are
the personal information of the parties to the litigation or information
furnished by the Government in relation to a particular case. There may         D
be information held by the High Court relating to the cases which have
been obtained from the various tribunals in exercise of the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. For instance, the matters arising out of the orders by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate                E
Tribunal and other tribunals over which the High Court exercises the
supervisory jurisdiction. The orders/judgments passed by the High Court
though are the documents which are concerned to the rights and liabilities
of the parties to the litigation. Under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the
Central Public Information Officer or the appellate authority may order
disclosure of personal information if they are satisfied that the larger        F
public interest justifies disclosure. Insofar as the High Court Rules are
concerned, if the information or certified copies of the documents/record
of proceedings/orders on the judicial side of the Court is required, all that
the third party is required to do is to file an application/affidavit stating
the reasons for seeking such information. On being satisfied about the          G
reasons for requirement of the certified copy/disclosure of information,
the Court or the concerned Officer would order for grant of certified
copies. As discussed earlier, Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court
Rules also stipulate the same procedure insofar as the third party seeking
certified copy of the documents/records.
                                                                                H
490               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A            41. Yet another contention advanced is that the information held
      by the High Court may be furnished to the applicant by following the
      procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Section 11 of the Act deals
      with third party information. As per Section 11 of the Act, if the
      requisite information or record or part thereof has been supplied by a
      third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, then
B
      the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,
      as the case may be, within five days of receipt of the request give a
      written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the
      Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,
      as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record or part
C     thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or
      orally regarding whether such information should be disclosed and such
      submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision
      about the disclosure of the information.
            42. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that
D     such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the
      information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective
      machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified
      copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an
      application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for
      which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification
E     for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome
      procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources
      which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid.
            43. We summarise our conclusion:-

F           (i)     Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third
                    party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified
                    copies of the documents or orders requires to file an
                    application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the
                    information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the
                    RTI Act; but merely lays down a different procedure as
G                   the practice or payment of fees, etc. for obtaining
                    information. In the absence of inherent inconsistency
                    between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law,
                    overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.

H
 CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v. HIGH COURT OF                             491
         GUJARAT AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      (ii)   The information to be accessed/certified copies on the          A
             judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided
             under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act
             shall not be resorted to.
      44. In the light of aforesaid reasonings, the impugned order dated
13.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters       B
Patent Appeal No.1348 of 2013 is confirmed and these appeals are
dismissed. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by
Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni as amicus.


Ankit Gyan                                              Appeals dismissed.   C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H