Introduction

In its recent decision, in the Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat case, the Supreme Court, regrettably, barred citizens from securing access to court records under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Instead, the court held that such records can be accessed only through the rules laid down by each High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution.

Body

Contours of the judgement

• The court concludes that there is no inconsistency between the RTI Act and the court rules.
• It is factually incorrect as the Gujarat HC Rules require the submission of an affidavit stating the purpose of seeking copies of the pleadings.
• However, the RTI Act requires no reasons to be provided while seeking information.
• The court argued that an enactment can’t 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.
• The court stated that if the intention was to repeal another law, the legislature would have specifically stated so in the RTI Act.

Importance of Court Records

• A significant number of decisions taken by the courts influence our daily life.
  • Every prosecution before a criminal court is essentially an opportunity to hold the police accountable just as every writ petition is an opportunity to hold the government accountable.
• Similarly, a significant number of commercial lawsuits are opportunities to learn more about corporations and the manner in which commercial translations are executed in the country.
• The pleadings filed by either party contain reams of information that are useful to a range of stakeholders such as citizens, journalists, academics, shareholders, etc., who can better inform the public discourse on the ramifications of these decisions.
• Court Records are most important, especially in cases of public interest litigation, where the courts indulge in policymaking on the basis of the report of an amicus curiae or an expert committee set up by judges.

Impact on judicial transparency

• Impacting transparency: Some High Courts, allow only parties to a legal proceeding to access the records of a case and some allow third parties to access court records if they can justify their request.
• This goes against the conception of the RTI Act, where no reasons are required to be provided thereby reducing the possibility of administrative discretion.
• Logistical difficulties -An application under the RTI Act can simply be made by post, with the fee being deposited through a postal order.
• Most HCs and the SC require physical filing of an application with the Registry, and a hearing to determine whether records should be given.

RTI and other Laws

• Some provisions of Indian Evidence Act (Sections 123, 124, and 162) provide to hold the disclosure of documents.

• • Under these provisions, head of department may refuse to provide information on affairs of state and only swearing that it is a state secret will entitle not to disclose the information.
  • In a similar manner no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence.
• The Atomic Energy Act, 1912 provides that it shall be an offence to disclose information restricted by the Central Government.
• The Central Civil Services Act provides a government servant not to communicate or part with any official documents except in accordance with a general or special order of government.
• The Official Secrets Act, 1923 provides that any government official can mark a document as confidential so as to prevent its publication.

• Whenever there is a conflict between the two laws, the provisions of the RTI Act override those of the OSA.

• • Section 22 of the RTI Act states that its provisions will have effect notwithstanding anything that is inconsistent with them in the OSA.

• Recently, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) would come under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), as CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court must understand that the judiciary’s track record of transparency is vastly on the lower end, when compared to other arms of the state. In today’s world where every public institution is striving to become more transparent, the continued resistance from the judiciary to making itself transparent in a meaningful manner will have an eroding effect on its legitimacy.
Being the guiding light of a democratic polity, the judiciary must make way for more transparency and become a role model for other institutions to follow the lead.