The Kerala High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman ruled that requests for copies of the “A” diary of civil and criminal postings cases are ineligible under the RTI Act since they relate to judicial processes. (M.P. Chothy v. Registrar General, High Court of Kerala)
The bench accordingly noted that requests under the pertinent Rules of Practice, but not the RTI Act may be made to get copies of the A-diary in criminal and civil cases.
The bench remarked, “These provisions governing requests for copies under the Subordinate Courts’ Rules of Practice are nearly identical to Rules 128 and 129 of the High Court of Kerala’s 1971 Rules, which were created in accordance with Article 225 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner may get copies of “A” diary of civil and criminal postings in the cases by submitting requests in accordance with the applicable Rules of Practice.”
Facts of the case
The petitioner, a retired Class I officer and presently a practicing lawyer had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking copies of ”A’ diary of civil and criminal postings of the cases for the period from 01-12-2021 to 14-04-2022.
The said application was rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) stating that the information sought can be obtained by submitting copy application and besides, information is already available on the Court website, the Court's notice board, and on the Kiosk of the District Court.
The first appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 (2) of the RTI Act was dismissed on the ground that the information sought by the petitioner relates to judicial proceedings and the High Court as per Rule 12 of the Right to Information (Subordinate Courts and Tribunals) Rules, 2006 has directed all Subordinate Courts in the State that no information relating to any Judicial Proceedings shall be disclosed under the said Act.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed the instant petition to assail both; the order of the PIO and the order dismissing the first appeal. Besides, the petitioner had sought to quash Rule 12 of the Rules, 2006 contending that the said provision is in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the provisions of the RTI Act.
Courts observation & Judgment
The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Information Commissioner v High Court of Gujarat & Anr. and ruled that the copies of "A' diary of civil and criminal postings of the cases requested by the petitioner pertain to judicial proceedings and that such application for information cannot be contented under the Rules.
The Court observed that it is in the exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the RTI Act read with Article 235 of the Constitution of India the High Court of Kerala has made the Right to Information (Subordinate Courts and Tribunals) Rules, 2006 in respect of Courts subordinate to the High Court and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals.
Furthermore, since Criminal Rules of Practice and the Civil Rules of Practice provide for provisions for the grant of copies of any proceedings or documents filed or in the custody of the Court, the High Court, under Rule 12 of the Right to Information (Subordinate Courts and Tribunals) Rules, 2006, has provided that no application for information or document relating to any judicial proceedings held by and under the control of the public authority, shall be entertained by the PIO.
The court ruled, “The Apex Court in the Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and another has held that when the information can be obtained through the mechanism provided under the rules made by the High Court, the said mechanism should be preserved and followed and the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to. Since the copies of ''A' diary of civil and criminal postings of the cases' can be obtained by the petitioner on filing applications under the Rules of Practice, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted.”
Read Judgment @LAtestlaws.com
Picture Source :
