Opinion Let in the light

The Madras High Court’s order requiring applicants to place on record the reasons for seeking information under the RTI Act runs contrary to the spirit of the landmark legislation. It is also in apparent conflict with Section 6(2) of the act, which makes it clear that “an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting information”. The ruling came in response to an application to the Madras HC registry for file notings on a complaint against a chief metropolitan magistrate — the registry’s decision to turn it down was upheld by the court. “The intention of the legislature is not… that such informations are [sic] to be given like pamphlets to any person unmindful of the object behind seeking it”, declared the court. The HC has undermined the struggle for accountability by providing discretion to officials to evaluate and reject RTI applications based on the reasons for filing them.

The Madras HC ruling is the latest in a string of cases under the RTI regime that reflect the judiciary’s reluctance to be brought under its ambit. In April this year, the Madras HC increased the fee for filing RTI applications before its registry to Rs 100, despite the Centre asking public authorities to peg it at Rs 10. In 2007, the SC refused to abide by a directive from the Central Information Commissioner to disclose the assets of its judges (it would later publish this information, but as part of an “in-house exercise”). Judges cannot be “exposed to public scrutiny or inquiry because it would hamper their functioning and independence”, maintained the court. On an appeal against the CIC’s order, the Delhi High Court, in a pathbreaking judgment penned by then Chief Justice A.P. Shah, held that the chief justice of India was indeed a “public authority” under the RTI Act. The SC, unsurprisingly, appealed to itself against the high court verdict. That case is yet to be decided.

Advertisement

Since its passage, the RTI Act has met with considerable opposition from the governing class. In 2009, the UPA had sought to keep out “vexatious” RTI requests, as well as applications for “file notings”; amendments to this effect were subsequently shelved. The government attempted unsuccessfully last year to overturn the CIC’s order declaring political parties to be “public authorities”. Given the executive’s palpable disinterest, it is incumbent on the courts to strengthen this crucial legislation. But so far, its own evasion of the RTI regime has cast the judiciary in a poor light. Courts should expand the scope of information that can be sought through RTI petitions. And they must begin by making the act’s provisions applicable to themselves.