Delhi High Court
Aastha Sharma & Ors vs Registrar General, Delhi High ... on 20 January, 2016
Author: G. Rohini
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10599/2015
AASTHA SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Petitioners in person.
Versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 20.01.2016
1. This public interest petition has been filed alleging that Rules 3 and
10 of the Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 are not in
conformity with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is
also alleged that the High Court Rules do not provide access to information
to the citizens falling under „below poverty line‟ category at free of cost.
2. The Right to Information Act, 2005 ( for short 'the Act') has been
enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information
for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public
authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority. Section 28 of the Act empowers the
competent authority to make Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. In
exercise of the powers so conferred, the High Court of Delhi made Delhi
High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the
„High Court Rules‟) and the same were notified vide notification
No.180/Rules/DHC dated 11.08.2006. So far as the Courts subordinate to
High Court of Delhi are concerned, a different set of Rules, viz., Delhi
District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 ( hereinafter referred to
as the „District Court Rules‟) have been made vide notification
No.162/Rules/DHC dated 06.05.2009.
3. Rules 3 and 10 of the High Court Rules, which are impugned in the
present writ petition read as under:
"Rule 3. Application for seeking information [Explanation:- For
each information sought, separate application shall be made.
However, where more than one information sought is
consequential or related to one another, applicant w ill .be
permitted to seek them in one application.]
(a) Any person seeking information under the Act shall
file an application from 11 A.M. to 1 P.M. and 2 P.M. To 4
P.M. on a Court working day to the authorized person in
Form A and deposit application fee as per Rule 10 with the
authorized person;
(b) The authorized person shall duly acknowledge the
application as provided in Form B.
Provided that a person who makes a request through electronic form
shall ensure that the requisite fee is deposited in cash, Indian Postal
Order, Demand Drafts, Pay Order with the authorized person within
15 days of his sending the request through the electronic form and
through post, failing which his application shall be treated as
dismissed.
Rule 10. Charging of application Fee - (i) The authorized person
shall charge the fee at the following rates, namely:
(A) Application Fee
(i) Information not relating to 50 Rupees above.
Rule 4(iv) per application.
(ii) Information other 50 Rupees per
than (i) above. application.
(B) Other fees-
SI.No. Description of information Price/Fee in Rupees
1. Where the information is available Price So fixed
in the form of a priced publication
2. For other than priced publication Rs.5.00 per page
4. The contention of the petitioners is that the requirement under Rule 3
to make separate applications for each information, is inconsistent with the
object sought to be achieved by the Act. Regarding Rule 10, it is contended
that the fees prescribed @ Rs.50/- per application and Rs.5/- per page for
other than priced publication is unreasonable and exorbitant apart from
being contrary to sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Act. The further
contention is that the High Court Rules, which are silent about the
applications received from the persons who are below poverty line cannot be
held to be in conformity with the mandatory provisions of 7(5) of the Act,
which expressly provides that no fees shall be charged from the persons who
are below poverty line.
5. When the matter was taken up on 18.11.2015, it was brought to our
notice by Mr.Rajiv Bansal, the learned counsel representing the respondent
that the issues raised in the petition regarding the application fees prescribed
in Rule 10 and the information to be furnished to the persons who are belo w
poverty line free of cost have already been considered by the Committee
dealing with the issues under the Right to Information Act in the meeting
held on 02.09.2015 and the following Amendments were recommended to
High Court Rules:
"(I) The existing Rule 10(i)(A) of the Delhi High Court (Right to
Information) Rules, 2006 be replaced by the new Rule 10.(i)(A), in
the following way:
"10(i)(A) Application Fee - 10 Rupees per application."
(II) The existing Rule 10.(i)(B) of the Delhi High Court (Right to
Information) Rules, 2006 be replaced by the new Rule 10.(i)(B), in
the following way:
"10(i)(B) Other fees -
Fee for providing information under -subsection (4) and sub-
sections (1) and (5) of Section 7 of the Act shall be charged at the
following rates, namely;-
(a) Rupees two for each page in A-3 or smaller size paper;
(b) actual cost or price of photocopy in large size paper;
(c) actual cost or price for samples or models;
(d) rupees fifty per diskette or floppy;
(e) price fixed for a publication or rupees two per page of photocopy
for extracts from the publication;
(f) no fee for inspection of records for the first hour of inspection
and a fee of rupees 5 for each subsequent hour or fraction
thereof; and
(g) so much of postal charge involved in supply of information that
exceeds fifty rupees."
(III) The new Rule 10.(i)C) be added after the above proposed new
Rule 10.(i)(B), in the following way:
"10(i)(C) Exemption from Payment of Fee - No fee under rule
10(i)(A) and rule 10(i)(B) shall be charged from any person who is
below poverty line provided a copy of the certification issued by the
appropriate Government in this regard is submitted alongwith the
application."
6. Similarly, the following Amendments have been recommended to the
District Courts Rules:
"(IV) The existing sub-rule (c) of Rule 4 of the Delhi District Courts
(Right to Information) Rules, 2008 be replaced by new sub-rule (c)
of Rule 4, in the following way:
"4(c) Fee for providing information under sub-section (4) of Section
4 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 7 of the Act shall be
charged at the following rates, namely:-
(i) rupees two for each page in A-3 or smaller size paper;
(ii) actual cost or price of a photocopy in large size;
(iii) actual cost or price for samples or models;
(iv) no fee for inspection of records for the first hour of inspection
and a fee of rupees 5 for each subsequent hour or fraction thereof;
and
(v) so much of postal charge involved in supply of information that
exceeds fifty rupees."
(V) The existing sub-rule (d) of Rule 4 of the Delhi District Courts
(Right to Information) Rules, 2008 be replaced by the new sub-rule
(d) of Rule 4, in the following way:-
"4(d) Fee for providing information under sub-section (4) of Section
4 of Section 4 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 7 of the Act
shall be charged at the following rates, namely:-
(i) Rupees fifty per diskette;
(ii) price fixed for a publication or rupees two per page of
photocopy for extracts from the publication."
(VI) The existing sub-rule (g) of Rule 4 of the Delhi District Courts
(Right to Information) Rules, 2008 be replaced by the new sub-rule
(g) of Rule 4, in the following way:
4.(g) No fee under sub-rule (a), sub-rule(c) and sub-rule(d) of rule 4
shall be charged from any person who is below poverty line
provided a copy of the certificate issued by the appropriate
Government in this regard is submitted along with the application."
7. So as to enable the learned counsel for the respondent to get
instructions as to what further steps have been taken pursuant to the
recommendations made by the Committee in its meeting dated 02.09.2015,
the petition was adjourned from 18.11.2015 to 20.01.2016.
8. When the matter is taken up today for consideration, it is represented
by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the recommendations of
the Committee dated 02.09.2015 have been approved by the Full Court in
the meeting dated 18.01.2016 and he was instructed by the Registrar
General, High Court of Delhi that the Amendments to both the Delhi High
Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 and the Delhi District Courts
(Right to Information) Rules, 2008 as approved by the Full Court would be
notified within four weeks.
9. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 27 of the Act, the
Central Government had initially made Central Information Commission
(Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 and the Right to Information (Regulation of
Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. Subsequently, in supersession of the said rules,
the Central Government made the Right to Information Rules, 2012
published in the Gazette of India dated 31.07.2012. Rule 4 of the said Rules
prescribes the fees for providing information. As is evident from the
Amendments that have now been affected to the High Court Rules as well as
the District Rules, the fees structure has been brought in conformity with the
provisions of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 made by the Central
Government. Similarly, the persons who are below poverty line are also
expressly exempted from payment of fees, provided a copy of the certificate
issued by the appropriate Government is submitted along with the
application.
10. Thus, the two issues raised in the writ petition, i.e., the rate of
application fees and the exemption to the persons who are below poverty
line have been addressed by the respondent.
11. So far as the contention of the petitioners that Rule 3 of the High
Court Rules is not in conformity with the parent Act since it requires
separate applications to be made for each information sought is concerned,
we do not find any merit since it is made clear in the Explanation to Rule 3
itself that where more than one information sought is consequential or
related to one another, applicant will be permitted to seek them in one
application. The said requirement, according to us, cannot be said to b e in
contravention of the object of the Act to ensure maximum disclosure and
minimum exemptions and effective mechanism for access to information.
The contention of the petitioners which does not hold any legal basis is
wholly misconceived. As already mentioned, the Explanation to Rule 3
requires separate applications only where more than one information which
is not related to one another is sought. Apparently, the same is intended to
prevent frivolous applications seeking roving inquiries into innumerable
subjects. Hence, no amendment is needed to Rule 3 of High Court Rules in
that regard.
12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH, J
JANUARY 20, 2016 /pmc
