ARJUN SHEORAN

..Petitioner
Versus

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
..Respondents
INDEX
Sr. No. Particulars Dated Page(s) Court Fees
1. List of Dates and Events 13.02.2013 A --
2. Memo Of Parties 13.02.2013 1 50/-
3. Civil Writ Petition 13.02.2013 2-38 ---
4. Affidavit 13.02.2013 39-40 ---
5. Annexure P-1 (HC Rules) 14.08.2007 41-52 7.80/-
6. Annexure P-2 (Haryana Rules) 14.08.2007 53-65 8.45/-
7. Annexure P-3 (Punjab Rules) 14.08.2007 66-78 7.15/-
8. Annexure P-4 (Chandigarh Rules) 14.08.2007 79-91 8.45/-
9. Annexure P-5 (Central Rules) 25.09.2005 92 0.65/-
10. Annexure P-6 (Letter) 26.04.2011 93-94 1.30/-
11. Annexure P-7 (Appeal Rules) 28.10.2005 95-97 1.95/-
12. Annexure P-8 (Order of Commission) 21.11.08 98-125 18.20/-
Rs.103.95/-
Notes:
1. The questions of law canvassed in the present petition are contained in para No. 44 at Page
36 thereof.
2. Relevant Statute/Rules: The Right to Information Act, 2007, High Court of Punjab and
Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to
Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007
th
February, 2013 Petitioner in Person

Chandigarh (ARJUN SHEORAN, ADVOCATE)
Dated: 13
3. Any other case: Nil
4. As per the knowledge of the petitioner, no caveat petition has been filed in the matter.
5. The present petition is in the nature of a P.I.L.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 3265 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
..Petitioner
Versus

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
..Respondents

Total amount of Court Fees Affixed: Rs. 103.95/-








Chandigarh
Dated: 13
th
February, 2013 ARJUN SHEORAN, ADVOCATE
Petitioner in Person

C.W.P. No. 3265 of 2013
ARJUN SHEORAN
A
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS


DATE EVENT
21.06.2005 Right to Information Act, 2005 was published in the Gazette of India
14.08.2007 High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and
the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab
Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Chandigarh Union
Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 were brought
into being by publication in the Gazette.
13.02.2013 Filing of the present petition.


Chandigarh

Dated: 13
th
February, 2013



ARJUN SHEORAN, Advocate
(Petitioner in Person)


1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

MEMO OF PARTIES
ARJUN SHEORAN, ADVOCATE, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, SON OF
SANJEEV BHARTI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1, SECTOR-16/A,
CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH UNION TERRITORY.
PETITIONER
Versus
1. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CHANDIGARH
2. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, 2
ND
FLOOR, AUGUST KRANTI BHAVAN, BHIKAJI CAMA
PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066
Respondents
Chandigarh
13
th
February, 2013 ARJUN SHEORAN, Advocate
(Petitioner in Person)
Civil Writ Petition No. 3265 of 2013
2

A WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR QUASHING
RULES 3, 4, 6, 7 INTER ALIA OF THE HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA (RIGHT TO INFORMATION) RULES,
2007, HARYANA SUBORDINATE COURTS (RIGHT TO
INFORMATION) RULES, 2007, PUNJAB SUBORDINATE
COURTS (RIGHT TO INFORMATION) RULES, 2007,
CHANDIGARH UNION TERRITORY SUBORDINATE COURTS
(RIGHT TO INFORMATION) RULES, 2007, FRAMED UNDER
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 WHICH ARE NOT
IN CONSONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE
SAID ACT, AND VIOLATE ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
1. That the Petitioner is a practicing advocate registered with the Bar Council of
Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner herein has been working and using the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for several
years, since he was a student at National Law School of India University,
Bangalore, for improving transparency and accountability and has been a
volunteer associated with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and the National
Campaign for Peoples Right to Information, both of which have been at the
forefront of bringing about the Act and a movement for transparency and
accountability in India.

3

2. That the Petitioner came across the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
(Right to Information) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and
the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab
Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Chandigarh Union
Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, during his
course of work which required him to file RTI Applications under the Act with
the Respondent No. 1 and Subordinate Courts. These Rules are formulated
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub- section (1) of Section 28 read with Section 2 (e)(iii) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as its
administrative function.

A copy of the Rules are hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-1.

3. That Section 28 of the Act delegates the specific function of rule making to
the Competent Authority as defined under Section 2 (e) (iii) of the Act. The
rule making for a Honble High Court, is done by the Competent Authority.
Drawing from Section 28 of the Act, the Competent Authority has the power,
inter alia, to prescribe such reasonable timing for filing application, procedure
for the same, the fees payable, the cost attributable to the medium or print
cost of the material to be disseminated which is in spirit and as per the
objective of its parent Act. Section 28 of the Act reads as under:
28 . Power to Make Rules by Competent Authority
(1) The competent authority may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
4

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following
matters, namely:
(i) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the
materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;
(ii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;
(iii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 7;
and
(iv) any other matter which is required to be, =or may be,
prescribed.

The following Rules have thus been made, in exercise of such power as the
Competent Authority for the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and for the
subordinate courts of Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh:
High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007
Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007
(Annexed as ANNEXURE P/2)
Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007
(Annexed as ANNEXURE P/3)
Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information)
Rules, 2007 (Annexed as ANNEXURE P/4)

The rules for the subordinate judiciary of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh
have been identically framed and are ultra vires of the parent Act as well for the
5

same reasons. However for the sake of brevity, the High Court Rules, 2007
whose provisions are being analyzed to show how they are ultra vires.

4. That Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of The Rules, along with similarly framed rules for
the subordinate judiciary are being challenged as being ultra vires the parent
Act and for being unconstitutional.

5. IN RE: RULE 6
That Rule 6 (i) is in clear violation of the mandate of Section 6 (3) of the Act.
Keeping in mind the objective of the Act to reduce time taken for procuring
the information and to prevent unnecessary harassment to applicants,
Section 6 (3) of the Act lays down
(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for
an information,
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the
functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such
application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as
may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the
applicant immediately about such transfer
Thus, Section 6 (3) the Act casts a duty on the public authority to transfer
such application to the appropriate authority and inform the applicant about
such transfer. However, Rule 6 (i) is in clear contradiction of the above
mentioned Section 6 of the Act. This is because Rule 6 (i) not only mandates
that if the requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
6

authorized person, the application must be returned to the applicant, but also
places the burden on the applicant to file a fresh application. The said rule
further does not reimburse the fees paid thereby adding unnecessary financial
burden on the applicant. Rule 6 (i) reads as under:
6. Disposal of application by the authorized person:
(i) If the requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
authorized person, he shall order return of the application to the
applicant in Form C as expeditiously as possible in any case within 30
days from the date of receipt of the application, advising the applicant,
wherever possible, about the authority concerned to whom the
application should be made. The application fee deposited in such
cases shall not be refunded.
Thus, as Rule 6(i) clearly disregards the mandate of the Section 6(3) of the
Act, it is ultra vires the Act and thus liable to struck down.

6. IN RE: RULE 3
That the Rule 3 violates Section 6 of the Act in the sense that whilst Rule 3
prescribes a specific format, Form A to request any information under the
Act, Section 6 liberally allows the information requested to through electronic
means or even orally. Such restrictions of form of application proves to an
inconvenience to people at large including the number of population who
might not be in a position to prescribe to such format due to lack of literacy.
7. That Rule 3 of the Rules provides the timing for filing the request for
application under Section 6 of the Act. The said rule allocates mere two hours
7

a day from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m whilst usually the timing for filing the
request for application under the Act across various public authorities is set
out to be throughout the working hours of such public authority. Such a
narrow window set out by Rule 3 is severely restrictive, inconvenient and
against the spirit of the Act. Under Section 5 of the Act, a duty is cast upon
the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, to deal with requests from persons seeking information and
render reasonable assistance. In the present limited number of hours, it can
be reasonably assumed that such Officer being pressed for time will not be
able to provide quality services and assistance to the public seeking such
information under the Act, as required, and thereby being unable to discharge
his statutory duty under Section 5 (3) of the Act. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as
under
3. Application for seeking information:
Any person seeking information under the Act shall make an
application in Form A to the authorized person, in between 11.00 A.M.
to 1.00 P.M., on a Court working day and shall deposit application fee
as per Rule 7 by paying fee by way of adhesive court fee stamps or
demand drafts/ bankers cheque/ Indian postal orders in favour of
Registrar , Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh or in any other
form so determined by the competent authority from time to time
Thus, as it is the duty of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, to deal with requests from persons
seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking
8

such information as per Section 5 (3) of the Act. Therefore, any arbitrary limit
on the number of hours for receiving such applications goes against the duties
prescribed to the Public Information Officers. The rule which prescribes
merely 2 hours out of about 7-8 total working hours for which the offices of the
Respondent No. 1 is otherwise functioning is unreasonable, arbitrary and
against the letter and spirit of the Act. This rule unnecessarily restricts and
limits the substantive rights of the citizens under the Act by providing arbitrary
and unjustified procedures.

8. IN RE: RULE 7
That Rule 7 exemplifies how the present rules fail to carry out the purposes
of the said Act, as also the extent to which they are in conflict with the
parent Act as Rule 7 goes against the letter and spirit of the parent Act per se
and therefore is ultra vires the parent Act. Rule 7 reads as under:

7. Charging of Fee:
(i) The application fee: A minimum of Rupees fifty shall be
charged as application fee.

(i-A) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply of
information at the following rates:
Sr.No
.
Description of
information
Price/fees in rupees
9

(A)
Where the
information is
available in the
form of a priced
publication
On printed price.

(B)
For other than
priced publication
Rupees ten per page and rupees
twenty in case the information is
required under section 7 of the
Act with minimum of Rs. Fifty per
application.
(C)
Where information
is available in
electronic form
and is to be
supplied in
electronics form
e.g. Floppy, CD
etc.
Rupees one hundred per floppy
and Rupees two hundred per CD.
(D)
Information
relating to tenders
documents/bids/q
uotation/Business
contract
Rupees Five hundred per
application.

10

(ii)The fee for inspection of documents or record shall be Rs.
10/- per fifteen minutes or a fraction thereof and Rs. 20 per 15
minutes in case the information is required under section 7 of
the Act, for the inspection of record/document.
(iii)The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the
competent authority from time to time.
(iv) Every page of information to be supplied shall be duly
authenticated and shall bear the seal of the officer concerned
supplying the information.
(v) During inspection the applicant shall not be allowed to take
the photograph of the record/document. The applicant shall not
cause any hindrance to the Office work and shall cooperate
with the staff and complete the inspection as soon as possible.
The Public Information Officer concerned shall have the right to
fix the time and date of the inspection according to
administrative convenience and his/her decision shall be final.
(vi) A fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal on form F shall
be paid by way of adhesive court fee stamps or demand drafts/
bankers cheque/ Indian postal orders in favour of Registrar ,
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh or in any other
form so determined by the competent authority from time to
time.


9. That Rule 7 (i-A)(B) prescribes that for other than priced publication a fees of
11

Rupees ten per page and rupees twenty in case the information is required
under section 7 of the Act with minimum of Rs. Fifty per application. This
Rule is again vague, unclear, arbitrary and illegal because of three reasons:
a. First, that Rule 7 (i-A)(B) provides for Rupees Ten/Twenty per page
as the cost of information, which is five/ten times the fees prescribed
by The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005,
(Annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-5) i.e. Rs. Two per A4 size page,
which are followed by Central Government Public Authorities, and
even followed by the Honble Supreme Court. It states: (a) rupees
two for each page (in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied; (b)
actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper; (c) actual
cost or price for samples or models; and (d) for inspection of records,
no fee for the first hour and a fee of Rs 5 for each 15 minutes (or
fraction thereof) thereafter.

Thus, the fee prescribed under Rule 7 (i-A)(B) is unreasonable and
against the mandate of the proviso of Section 7(5) of the Act which
states that Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of
section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable
and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below
poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government. It
is pertinent to mention herein that as per Section 7 (3)(a) of the Act,
the fees prescribed for the information represents the cost of providing
the information. It is quite unusual that the cost of providing such
information differs so vastly between similarly placed public
12

authorities, as all Central Governmental Public Authorities and even
the Honble Supreme Court is able to provide information at Rupees
Two per page.
It is seems that there has been no application of mind by Honble
Punjab and Haryana High Court in determining the same. That it is
pertinent to mention that action has been taken by The Ministry of
Personnel, PG & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training,
Government of India who have issued a notification No. F.1/5/2011-
IR dated April 26, 2011, with a view to reduce the variance in fees
prescribed by different appropriate Governments/Competent
Authorities. It was stated in the said letter:

N0.F. 1/5/2011 -IR
Government of lndia
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
******
North Block, New Delhi
Dated April 26,201 1
1. The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs (except J&K)
2. The Registrars of all High Courts
3. The Registrar of the Supreme Court
Subject:- Harmonization of fee payable under the Right to lnformation
Act. 2005
Sir.
13

Sections 27 and 28 of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005
empower the appropriate Governments and the Competent
Authorities to make rules to prescribe, inter-alia, the fees payable
under the Act. In exercise of the powers. the Central Government,
State Governments, High Courts etc. have notified rules. It has been
observed that the fee prescribed by different appropriate
Governments/Competent Authorities is at great variance.
2. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission has, in this regard
recommended that the States should frame Rules regarding
application fee in harmony with the Central Rules and ensure that the
fee should not become a disincentive for using the right to information.
3. All the States/Competent Authorities are, therefore, requested
to kindly review their Fee Rules and to prescribe fee in consonance
with the fee prescribed by the Government of lndia. A copy of the
Right to lnformation (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005
notified by the Government of lndia is enclosed for ready reference.
4. Kindly inform us of the action taken in this regard.

Sd/-
Hereto annexed is a copy of the said notification as ANNEXURE P-6


That in view of the aforementioned notification all the States/
Competent Authorities have been urged to review the rules regarding
amount of fees charged for information under the Act. That the
14

Honble Supreme Court of India has also kept its fees structure for
information under the Act as per the amount of fees prescribed by the
Government of India.
b. Secondly, Rule 7(i-A)(B) provides for two rates for providing
information i.e. Rupees ten per page and rupees twenty in case the
information is required under section 7 of the Act with minimum of Rs.
Fifty per application whereas there is no such power with the
Competent Authority under the Act to charge differential rates for
different kinds of requests for the same kind of information, if there
does exist any such difference. In fact, the information which is to be
provided within 30 days and the information which is to be provided
within 48 hours is no different from each other in terms of form or
content and the only difference is that the latter concerns the life and
liberty of an individual and thus needs to be provided within a shorter
time limit. Thus, there are no reasons for making such differential rates
because the form and content of the information in both the
abovementioned cases will be the same, and it is only that the term
expeditiously in Section 7(1) of the Act is limited to 48 hours as per
the proviso to section 7(1) in matters concerning life and liberty of an
individual and nothing else, and thus no enhanced fee can be charged
for the expeditious provision of information, which in any case the
Public Information Officer is bound to provide expeditiously. It is
pertinent to note that the Rule 7 must not treat the fee for the
information concerning life and liberty of a person as an urgent or
tatkal fee as the time limit of 48 hours is only for cases concerning the
15

life and liberty of any individual and it is not an additional service
provided by the Public Information Officer (hereinafter the PIO), as in
any case the PIO is bound to provide the information expeditiously. In
any case, the fee provided under Rule 7 does not follow the mandate
of the Act as it is neither reasonable nor does it represent merely the
cost of providing the information, as provided under the proviso to
Section 7 (5) of the Act.
c. Thirdly, Rule 7(i-A)(B) mandates that a minimum fee of Rupees Fifty
per application shall be charged while supplying information. This
mandatory fee is arbitrary as it is not commensurate to the number of
pages of information provided to the applicant, as the applicant might
have required only a page or so of information. Thus, the mandatory
Rupees Fifty in several cases would be way more than cost of
providing the information, which would make the said fee
unreasonable and thus against proviso of Section 7(5) of the Act.

Thus, the fee for providing information is amongst the highest in the country
as not only the Rules provide that not only the rate per page of information is
five/ten times the rate prescribed for otherwise similarly placed Central
Government Public Authorities, and even the Honble Supreme Court of
India, which follows the The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and
Cost) Rules, 2005, but also, arbitrarily, differential rates of information are
provided for information which is concerning the life and liberty of a person
which is to be provided within 48 hours and information that is to be provided
within thirty days. Furthermore, a minimum of Rupees Fifty are to be
16

compulsorily paid under Rule 7(i-A)(B) which is arbitrary. By asking for
arbitrarily enhanced fees for information, the Rule exploits the vulnerable
position of the applicants and imposes an illegal and arbitrary financial
burden which may act as a deterrent to file an application.

10. That thus, Rule 7 of the Rules is against Section 7 (5) of the Act. The Section
7 (5) proviso states that the fee prescribed by such Rules shall be
reasonable. Furthermore, Section 7(3) of the Act lays down that where
additional payment of fees may be required for providing information, in such
cases, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, shall send intimation to the applicant explaining
details of fees chargeable for additional information. This clarifies that the
fees prescribed should not only be reasonable under proviso to Section 7 (5)
of the Act but should also signify/represent the reason/ details of the cost for
providing the information. The Petitioner hence states that the prohibitive cost
under Rule 7 for providing information is against the parent statute.

11. That Rule 7 (i-A)(D) prescribes for Information relating to tenders documents
/bids /quotation /Business contract an exorbitant sum of Rupees five
Hundred per application to be charged compulsorily. This rule is not only
arbitrary and prone to misuse, but also puts illegal and unauthorized fetters to
Indian citizens Right to Information under the Act. This unreasonable amount
is financial encumbrance to the citizens at large. The nature of the
information under Rule 7(i-A)(D) is no different from any other record/
document requested in an application under the Act and hence there is no
17

nexus between the amount charged and the reason for charging such a sum.

12. That one of the main aims of the Act is to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority. This is enshrined in the
Preamble of the Act which states:
An Act 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, the constitution of a Central
Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

13. That access to information relating to financial transactions, as illustrated
under Rule 7(i-A)(D), entered into by a public authority are prime instruments
of ensuring transparency and accountability and any arbitrary, unreasonable
and illegal fetters on the same must be prohibited.

14. That it is pertinent to consider the purpose of the Act, as stated under the
Preamble of the Act, and the same should be used to as a guideline while
interpreting the Act:
Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;
And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency
of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain
corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the governed
18


15. That, thus, one of the main reasons for enacting the Act was to ensure
transparency and contain corruption. Therefore, if excessively high fees are
imposed for accessing documents relating to details and background of the
financial expenditure made by Respondent No. 1, a common person cannot
challenge the illegality and arbitrariness of an expenditure which cannot be
discerned without complete information relating to tenders documents/ bids/
quotation/ Business contract.

16. That with regards to Rule 7, the payment of fee of a sum of Rs. 500 is applied
blindly notwithstanding that cost of copies of such number of pages of
information might not add up to Rs. 500. The abovesaid Rule does not take
into account the possibility that an applicant may only require such
information and not copies thereof. Furthermore, a compulsory fee of rupees
five hundred thwarts and discourages applications for information, regarding
financial decisions and spending of Respondent No. 1. This goes against the
statutory obligation under the parent Act of charging a reasonable fee, which
essentially mandates that the cost is to recover only the cost of providing the
information.

17. That a prohibitive fee of rupees five hundred as laid down in Rule 7 has no
reasonable nexus with the material which would be provided in lieu of such
application for information. This arbitrary fee and the said Rule are clearly
prone to misuse. It is illegal and puts unauthorized fetters to the Indian
citizens right to information under the Act.
19


18. That Rule 7 (i) stipulates an application fee of Rs. 50 per application, which
keeping in mind the objective of the Act, ought to be in order to cover the cost
of providing the information. The idea of charging the fee, clearly established,
is to reimburse the authority providing the information for the expenses it
incurs to make available such information. Hence a link must exist between
fees charged and information provided. However, Rule 7 (i-A) places extra
burden on the applicant by charging Rs. 10 per page and Rs. 20 per page in
case the information is required under Section 7 of the Act. This
discriminatory and arbitrary charging of fees without any application of mind
on the part of authority is violative of the Preamble of the Act and against its
spirit as well.
19. That similarly, Rule 7(ii) provides for an excessive and unreasonable amount
as fees for inspection of the record, as Rs. 10 or 20, as the case may be, for
every 15 minutes. On the other hand, the Central Rules, as per Rule 4 (d)
provide that (d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee
of rupees five for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof). Considering
that a citizen is not even allowed to photograph or photocopy the record as
per Rule 7 (v), there seems to be no reason why a fees 8 to 16 times higher
has been provided for inspection of the record, but for creating unnecessary
and illegal hurdles in accessing information. Thus, Rule 7(ii) ultravires the
Act.

20. That Rule 7 goes against the mandate of the Act as it is neither reasonable
nor does set out any connection between the information provided and the
20

cost for providing such information. That furthermore, Rule 7 of the Rules is
against Section 7 (5) of the Act. The proviso to Section 7 (5) states that the
fee prescribed by such Rules shall be reasonable. Furthermore, Section 7(3)
of the Act lays down that where additional payment of fees may be required
for providing information, in such cases, the Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send intimation
to the applicant explaining details of fees chargeable for additional
information. This clarifies that the fees prescribed should not only be
reasonable under proviso to Section 7 (5) of the Act but should also
signify/represent the reason/ details of the cost for providing the information.
Hence, the prohibitive cost under Rule 7 for providing information is against
the parent statute.

21. That all the Central Government Public Authorities charge a reasonable fee
of Rupees two per page (A4 or A3 in size paper) of information created or
photocopied in consonance with the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee
and Cost) Rules, 2005. In comparison to such Central Authorities, the fees
prescribed by the Rules are exorbitant and stand to be one of the highest in
the country. It appears that such exorbitant fees are charged to deprive
financially weak applicants from seeking required information. It also appears
that steep fees are prescribed to discourage the public at large to seek
information from authorities and slow down the effective implementation of
the Act and goals set out therein.

22. That such variance in fees between various authorities has been recognized
21

as a threat to the Act. The 2
nd
Administrative Reforms Commissions
recommended that:-
the States should frame Rules regarding application fee in harmony
with the Central Rules and ensure that the fee should not become a
disincentive for using the right to information.

23. That the power delegated to the Competent Authority to frame rules regarding
the fees structure for information under the right to information application are
subject to Section 28 of the Act. Section 28 (2) (i) of the Act states that the
Rules framed may provide for the cost of the medium or print cost price of
the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4. The
use of the word cost instead of fee/ amount or price is evidence of the
legislatures intention for the fees to be a form of reimbursement of
expenses incurred by the concerned authority whilst providing
information and not to let such fees be form of a revenue generating
exercise.

24. That the Competent Authority under Section 28 of the Act while framing rules
regarding fees is bound to consider the reasonability of such amount of fees.
Unreasonable fees, is one of the biggest reasons for the ineffective
implementation of the Act and for the applicants preferring a first appeal.
Such unreasonable fees have been recognized as attempts to subvert the
intention and objective of the Act.

25. That the provision of fees of Rupees Hundred for the purpose of filing a first
22

appeal to the Appellate Authority created as per Section 19 (1) of the Act by
the Honble High Court also has no basis in law and is arbitrary and ultra
vires the Act. Rule 7(6) of the Rules reads as under:
(vi) A fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal on form F shall be paid by
way of adhesive court fee stamps or demand drafts/ bankers cheque/ Indian
postal orders in favour of Registrar , Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh or in any other form so determined by the competent authority
from time to time.
It is pertinent to mention that the Act per se does not provide for any Court
Fees of any kind for filing a first appeal to the Appellant Authority, and neither
does it provide for any fees for filing a second appeal before the Central/State
Information Commission. This fee for filing a first appeal is an unnecessary
burden on the applicant, who would be already aggrieved with the
inaction/wrongful action of the Public Information Officer. It is pertinent to
mention herein that the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure)
Rules, 2005 applicable to all second appeals to the Central Information
Commission do not provide for any fee for filing an appeal. A copy of the
same are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-7. Similarly, the Right to
Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost Rules) 2005 do not provide for any
fees for filing a first appeal.
Furthermore, the first appeal is provided as a matter of right to the applicant
and in fact, Section 19 (5) of the parent Act provides that the In any appeal
proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall
be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. Therefore, not only
23

there is an unfettered right to file an appeal, but also the onus is on the Public
Information Officer. However, the provision of Court fees for filing an appeal
in the Rules is an unnecessary and illegal burden placed in the exercise of a
citizens statutory and constitutional rights.

26. IN RE: RULE 4
That Rule 4 is vaguely worded, arbitrary and in principle can and has been
misused. It goes against the mandate of the parent Act and therefore is
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Rule 4 reads as under:
4. Exemption from disclosure of information:
1. The Information which relates to judicial functions and duties of the
Court and matter incidental and ancillary thereto shall not be disclosed in
terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.
Provided that the question as to which information relates to judicial
functions, duties of Court and matters incidental and ancillary or of
confidentiality shall be decided by the Competent Authority or his
delegate, whose decision shall be final.
2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any
examination/selection process conducted by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court for any or all categories of posts including that for
Punjab/Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and Punjab/Haryana
Superior Judicial Services.
24

Provided that the marks obtained by the candidates in each subject shall
be displayed on the website of the Court after the conclusion of the
selection process or at any early date, if decided to be disclosed not
affecting the confidentially and transparency of selection process.
27. That while Section 8 (b) of the Act states:
8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-
Section 8 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall
be no obligation to give any citizen,-
.;
(b) 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;
Thus Section 8(b) exempts information which is specifically forbidden by the
Court, the generality of exemptions under Rule 4 cannot be interpreted to be
expressly forbidden by Courts. Thus, very narrow category of cases are
provided wherein the disclosure can be exempted, and same has to be done
vide an express order. Also, an administrative/quasi-judicial application of
mind would have to made regarding whether to apply Section 8 (b) of the Act,
regarding each request of information. This necessitates that the nature of
the information required by the applicant should be decided on a case by
case basis. Thus, the Rules cannot provide for a blanket ban on all
information relating to judicial functions and duties of the Court and matter
incidental and ancillary as the same would be arbitrary and against the idea
of transparency.

25

28. That the Act is premised on disclosure being the norm and refusal being the
exception. It is legally established that the information requested for under
the Act may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with the Act only.
Such exemptions are exhaustive and not illustrative. Hence, no other
exemptions can be cited to reject an application.
29. That despite the decision in the matter of Shri Keshav Kaushik v. High
Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, Appeal
No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01415 dated 29.8.2008, the Central Information
Commission, the CIC had not only granted the information to the Petitioner
the said case, which was being denied to him on ground of Rule 4, but also
the Commission, exercising its power under Section 19(8) of the Act,
recommended that a review of Rule 5 (since deleted) and Rule 4 be
undertaken. The Commission stated It is also recommended to the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana u/s 19(8) (a) that they may consider a similar
review as that undertaken by the High Court of Delhi of its rule 5, of rule 4 of
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007
A copy of the said order of the Central Information Commission is hereinafter
annexed as ANNEXURE P-8.
Section 19(8) of the Act reads as follows:
(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to-
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be
necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act,
including-
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular
26

form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be;
(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the
maintenance, management and destruction of records;
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for
its officials;
(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b)
of sub- section (1) of section 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any
loss or other detriment suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
(d) reject the application.
However, despite the statutorily provided mandatory recommendation from
Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 has failed to act, and still retains Rule
4, despite the fact that it is ultra vires the parent Act.
30. Furthermore, the practical problems by ordinary citizens can be brought forth
by decisions of the Central Information Commission, as a consequence of
Rule 4, which is prone to misuse. The decisions show that the concerned
authorities of Respondent No. 1 have denied the information to the several
applicants, not under Section 8 of the Act but under the Rule 4. Such acts of
the concerned authorities of the Respondent No. 1 are arbitrary and the
against the mandate of the parent Act.
31. For example in the matter of Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. High Court of Punjab
27

and Haryana [CIC/WB/A/2010/000070SM], it was held as under by the
Central Information Commission:

3. The Appellant had wanted a number of Information relating to
the Haryana Superior Judicial Services, such as, total number of available
posts, yearwise, number of vacancies filled by promotion and those filled
by direct appointment, number ofpersons stillworkingonadhoc basis, reaso
ns for reducing the number of general category vacancies etc. The APIO
refused to disclose the information by citing the rules 4(a) and 5 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules 2007.
When the Appellant, not satisfied with the rejection of his request by the
APIO, approached the first Appellate Authority, that authority allowed the
appeal partly and directed the PIO to provide the information as desired at
Sr. Nos xii, xiii and xxii following which the said information was also
disclosed. The Appellate Authority, however, endorsed the decision of the
APIO in respect of the remaining requests.
4.During the hearing, the Respondent reiterated the arguments offered by
both the APIO and the Appellate Authority in declining most of the informa
tion. He argued that he was bound by the rules framed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana in this regard. When pointed out that information
could be denied only if expressly exempted under the Right to Information
(RTI) Act and not by any other rules whosoever might have framed those,
the Respondent submitted that he was bound by the rules framed by his
28

own High Court and could not comment on whether those rules were in
conformity with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act or not.
5.We find the stand taken by the APIO and the Appellate Authority earlier
as well as by the Respondent during the hearing to be totally out of sync
with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Neither the APIO
nor the Appellate Authority has anywhere cited any of the exemption
provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in support of his decision
for not disclosing much of the information sought by the Appellant. They
have merely referred to the rules made by the High Court in exercise of its
powers under Section 28 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Section 28
confers powers on the competent authority, such as, the High Court, to m
ake rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. Obviously, no competent
authority can make rules to obstruct the disclosure of information by
adding additional exemption provisions
not contained in the original Act. The kind of information the Appellant has
sought in the present case is entirely administrative in nature. If the High
Court holds this information in its possession, it must disclose it. All that is
required to be disclosed in this case is a series of information which
should be contained in various files and records of the High Court, provide
d it holds those records presently. It is important to note that neither the
APIO nor the Appellate Authority has mentioned anywhere in his
respective order that the
desired information, meaning thereby the relevant records, is not being
held by the High Court.
29

6.In the light of the above, we are of the clear and categorical view that
the desired information should be disclosed in terms of the provisions of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act..
32. That similarly in Mehar Singh v. CPIO, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
[CIC/WB/C/201 0/000581 SM], the Central Information Commission held that:
3. The Complainant had approached the CPIO seeking some
information regarding the action taken on a representation he had made
to the then Chief Justice of the High Court. The CPIO had informed him
that the desired information could not be disclosed in terms of Rule 4(a)
and 5 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana(Right to Information)
Rules 2007 without explaining how these rules came in the way of
disclosure of the desired information.
4. We carefully considered the submissions of both the parties. We also
carefully perused the response of the CPIO. We find his response
completely unsatisfactory. He has not passed a speaking order
while denying the information. He has not even made it clear how the
Rules cited by him are relevant to his decision. In any case, any
information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be denied
only if exempted under that Act. Rules framed by any competent
authority for carrying out the provisions of that Act cannot replace or
substitute the provisions of the said Act. We hope the CPIO will keep this
in mind in future and while denying any information would pass a
speaking order citing the appropriate exemption provisions from the Right
to Information (RTI) Act and not from the Rules made by the High Court.
5. In the present case, the desired information is about the action taken
30

on some representation made by the Complainant. There is no reason
why this information should not be disclosed as it is not covered under
any of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Complainant within 10
working days of receiving this order the desired information including the
photocopy of any relevant record/file noting which may be available.


33. That the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens of India.
This has been recognized by the Supreme Court in several decisions and
subsequently such right was codified by the Parliament in 2005. The Act
was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access to
information giving citizens the right to avail information. It lays down the
substantive right to information of the citizens and the practical mechanism
to enforce the said right. The scheme of the RTI Act stipulates inter alia
supply of the desired information within the period prescribed, institution of a
proper appellate mechanism and imposition of stringent penalties where
the PIO fails to provide the information within the mandated period without
reasonable cause.


34. That the object of Section 27 and 28 of the Act is to simplify the
operationalization of Act for both citizens and the public authorities; The
citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by
simply applying to the concerned authority under the provisions of the Act.
31

Section 28 envisages the competent authority to make provisions for
carrying out the purposes of the Act and not for denying information, the
denial of which is not permitted by the Act.

35. That the preamble to the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads:
democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of
information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain
corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the governed.

36. That various Honble Courts have declared in a plethora of cases that the
most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well informed
democracy is transparency. In the matter of State of UP v. Raj Narain,
AIR 1975 SC 865, a constitutional bench of the Honble Supreme Court
held that:
[I]n a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the
public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few
secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public
act, everything that is done in a public way, by their functionaries
(Para 74)

37. That in the case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors, AIR 1982
SC 149, the seven Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court of India
made the following observations regarding the right to information:
There is also in every democracy a certain amount of public suspicion
32

and distrust of government varying of course from time to time
according to its performance, which prompts people to insist upon
maximum exposure of its functioning Now, if secrecy were to be
observed in the functioning of government and the processes of
government were to be kept hidden from public scrutiny, it would tend
to promote and encourage oppression, corruption and misuse or abuse
of authority, for it would all be shrouded in the veil of secrecy without any
public accountability. But if there is an open government with
means, of information available to the public there would be greater
exposure of the functioning of government and it would help to assure
the people a better and more efficient administration. (Para 65)

38. That in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic
Reforms AIR 2002 SC 2112, while declaring that right to information is part
of the fundamental right of citizens, under Article 19(1)(a), a 3 judge bench
of the Honble Supreme Court of India, held unequivocally that:
The right to get information in a democracy is recognised all throughout
and is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy. (Para 56)

39. That the said Rules have been framed without keeping in mind the
objectives of the Act and without application of mind.
40. That the following table illustrates the Rules which are ultra vires of the
parent Act.


33


SR. NO. IMPUGNED RULE UNDER THE HIGH
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(RIGHT TO INFORMATION) RULES,
2007 AND SIMILAR RULES FOR THE
SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005, SECTIONS
THEREUNDER (CENTRAL ACT)
1
Rule 3 Section 5 and 6
2
Rule 4 Section 8 (b)
3
Rule 7 Section 7 and 28
4
Rule 6 Section 6

41. That the Rules negate the citizens right to information under the Act and
frustrate the implementation of the latter. The Act is a reflection of the will
of the citizens of India that has been codified by the Parliament, and
accepting Rules repugnant to the provisions and object of the Act would
render the Act redundant.
42. That it is humbly submitted the Honble Courts being alter of justice and
protector of the people and their rights, should lead the way as role models
in implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act, in its true letter and spirit
and inspire all public authorities to follow their lead in transparency. This
would certainly enhance the faith of an ordinary man in the judiciary and also
enable better delivery of the citizens fundamental right to information.

GROUNDS
34


43. That in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, the
impugned rules are liable to be quashed on the following grounds:

i. That Rule 3, 4, 7 and 6 inter alia of the Rules contain
provisions that are ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005,
which i nt er al i a provides a legal mechanism to enforce and
implement the citizens right to information guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

ii. That Rule 3, 4, 7 and 6 inter alia of the Rules are arbitrary,
illegal and unconstitutional, and are against the mandate of the letter
and spirit of the Right to Information Act. They create unnecessary
impediments and fetters to the proper exercise of the Indian citizens
right to information.

iii. That Rule 7 made in pursuance of Section 28, RTI Act,
2005, prescribe an exorbitant cost of Rs 500 for all information
relating to tender documents/bids/quotation/business contract and
furthermore impose an inflated cost of Rs. 10 and 20 per page of
information to be supplied, thus creating different rates for supplying
the same information thus impeding the access to information for the
vast majority of the population that is not economically advanced.

35


iv. That the impugned fee structure under the Rules are
discordant with the fee with the actual cost of providing the
information;

v. That Rule 6 is clearly violative of Section 6 of the Act as it
restricts the rights provided by the parent Act to a common citizen and
imposes undue and arbitrary fetters on exercise of Right to
Information.
vi. That Rule 4 goes beyond the list of exemptions provided
by the Act and hence is violative of the Act. The delegated power to
the Competent Authority to prescribe Rules are subject to the parent
Act and such capacity to frame rules cannot go beyond the power
which is designated to it.

vii. That Rule 3 provides for restrictive timings and specific
format which results in severe restrictions on the Act which are against
Sections of the Act and go against the objective of the Act.

viii. That in accordance with Section 22 of the Act, the
provisions of the Act would override all the existing laws and Rules.
The citizens have a right to access information under the Act or the
Rules.

ix. The impugned Rules nullify or whittle down the precious
36

right that has been conferred by the Act. In a large number of cases,
like in Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay v Gwalior Rayon Silk
Manufacturing Company Ltd., AIR 1992 SC 1782 this Honble
Court has held, The rules are meant only to carry out the
provisions of the Act and cannot take away what is conferred by
the Act or whittle down its effect.

44. That in the facts and circumstances of the present case as enumerated
above, the following the questions of law would arise for adjudication before
this Honble Court:
i. Whether rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Haryana
Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab
Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to
Information) Rules, 2007 arbitrary, unreasonable and
unconstitutional and ultra vires the parent Act and also violative
Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India?
45. That there is no alternative efficacious remedy available with the petitioner
except to approach this Honble Court by way of filing the present writ
petition. No appeal or revision lies in the conspectus of the present case.

46. That the petitioner has not filed any other such or similar writ petition in this
Honble High Court or in the Honble Supreme Court of India.

37

PRAYER
In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Honble Court in public interest may be pleased to:
i. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rules 4 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and the
Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information)
Rules, 2007, as unconstitutional and/ or ultra-vires the Right to
Information Act 2005 and/ or;

ii. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rules 6 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and the
Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information)
Rules, 2007 as unconstitutional and/ or ultra-vires the Right to
Information Act 2005 and/ or;

iii. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rules 7 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and the
Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information)
Rules, 2007 as unconstitutional and/ or ultra-vires the Right to
38

Information Act 2005 and/ or;


iv. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rules 7 (i-A) and 7 (i-B) of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and
the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,
Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information)
Rules, 2007 as unconstitutional and/ or ultra-vires the Right to
Information Act 2005 and/ or;
v. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rule 3 of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and the Haryana
Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab
Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Chandigarh
Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules,
2007 as unconstitutional and/ or ultra-vires the Right to Information
Act 2005 and/ or;
vi. Issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 1 and the
subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Honble High Court
of Punjab and Haryana to consider the application of the Right to
Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2006 framed by the
Central Government which are also being followed by the Honble
Supreme Court and/ or;
vii. to dispense with filling of advance copies of notice;
viii. to dispense with the filing of certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-8
39

ix. Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Honble court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.


Dated this day 13
th
of February 2013 Petitioner

Chandigarh ARJUN SHEORAN, Advocate
Petitioner in Person



40


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. ________ of 2013

ARJUN SHEORAN
Petitioners
Versus
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF ARJUN SHEORAN, SON OF SANJEEV BHARTI, HOUSE
NO. 1, SECTOR-16/A, CHANDIGARH.
I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. That the deponent is fully conversant with the facts of the case and is therefore,
competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That the averments made in para 1 to para 45 are true and correct to my knowledge.
No Part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
3. That the deponent is filling the accompanying petition in public interest and has no
personal interest in the same.
Chandigarh (ARJUN SHEORAN)
DEPONENT
Dated: 13
th
February, 2013
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to
my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therein.
Chandigarh
Dated: 13
th
February, 2013

(ARJUN SHEORAN)
DEPONENT

40-A
Vol. V. 1 Ch. 7-K
PART-K
[86]
[In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 28 read with Section 2(e)(iii) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana
hereby makes the following rules, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement:
(i) These rules shall be called the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007.
(ii) These rules shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.
(iii) These rules shall be applicable to the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
2. Definitions:
(i) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) Act means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of
2005);
(b) Appendix means the appendix appended to these
rules;
(c) Authorized Person means Public Information Officer
and Assistant Public Information Officer designated as
such by the Chief Justice of the High Court;
(d) Appellate Authority means designated as such by the
Chief Justice of the High Court;
(e) Form means a form appended to these rules;
(f) High Court means the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana;
(g) Section means the section of the Act;
(ii) Words and expressions used but not defined in these
Rules, shall have the same meanings assigned to them in
the Act.
3. Application for seeking information:
Any person seeking information under the Act shall make
an application in Form A to the authorized person, in between
11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M., on a Court working day and shall deposit
application fee as per Rule 7 by paying fee by way of adhesive
court fee stamps or demand drafts/ bankers cheque/ Indian
postal orders in favour of Registrar , Punjab and Haryana High
Court, Chandigarh or in any other form so determined by the
competent authority from time to time:
Provided that a person, who makes a request through
electronic form, shall ensure that the requisite fee is
deposited with the authorized person, in the manner
mentioned above, within seven days of his sending the
request through electronic form, failing which, the
application shall be treated as dismissed:
Vol. V. 2 Ch. 7-K
Provided further that the date of application shall be deemed to be
the date of deposit of the entire fee or the balance fee or deficit
amount of the fee to the authorized person.
4. Exemption from disclosure of information:
1. The Information which relates to judicial functions
and duties of the Court and matter incidental and ancillary
thereto shall not be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the
Act.
Provided that the question as to which information relates
to judicial functions, duties of Court and matters incidental and
ancillary or of confidentiality shall be decided by the Competent
Authority or his delegate, whose decision shall be final.
2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any
examination/selection process conducted by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court for any or all categories of posts including
that for Punjab/Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and
Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Services.
Provided that the marks obtained by the candidates in
each subjest shall be displayed on the website of the Court after
the conclusion of the selection process or at any early date, if
decided to be disclosed not affecting the confidentially and
transparency of selection process.
5. Deleted.
6. Disposal of application by the authorized person:
(i) If the requested information does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the authorized person, he shall order return
of the application to the applicant in Form C as
expeditiously as possible in any case within 30 days from
the date of receipt of the application, advising the applicant,
wherever possible, about the authority concerned to whom
the application should be made. The application fee
deposited in such cases shall not be refunded.
(ii) If the requested information falls within the
authorized persons jurisdiction and also in one or more of
the categories of restrictions listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the
Act and Rule 5 above and exemptions detailed in Rule 4
above, the authorized person, on being satisfied, will issue
the rejection order in Form D as soon as practicable,
normally within fifteen days and in any case not later than
thirty days from the date of the receipt of the application.
(iii) If the requested information falls within the
authorized persons jurisdiction, but not in one or more of
the categories listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rules
4 and 5 above, the authorized person, on being so satisfied,
shall supply the information to the applicant in Form E,
falling within its jurisdiction. In case the information
sought is partly outside the jurisdiction of the authorized
Vol. V. 3 Ch. 7-K
person or partly falls in the categories listed in Sections 8
and 9 of the Act, the authorized person shall supply only
such information as is permissible under the Act and is
within its own jurisdiction and reject the remaining part
giving reasons thereof.
(iv) The information shall be supplied as soon as
practicable, normally within fifteen days and in any case not
later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the
application on deposit of the balance amount, if any, to the
authorized person, before collection of the information. A
proper acknowledgement shall be obtained from the
applicant in token of receipt of information
(v) Deleted.
7. Charging of Fee:
(i) The application fee: A minimum of Rupees fifty shall be
charged as application fee.
(i-A) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply of
information at the following rates:
Sr.
No.
Description of information Price/fees in rupees
(A) Where the information is
available in the form of a
priced publication
On printed price.
(B)
(C)
(D)
For other than priced
publication
Where information is
available in electronic form
and is to be supplied in
electronics form e.g. Floppy,
CD etc.
Information relating to
tenders
documents/bids/quotation/
Business contract
Rupees ten per page and
rupees twenty in case the
information is required
under section 7 of the Act
with minimum of Rs. Fifty
per application.
Rupees one hundred per
floppy and Rupees two
hundred per CD.
Rupees Five hundred per
application.
Vol. V. 4 Ch. 7-K
(ii) The fee for inspection of documents or record shall be
Rs. 10/- per fifteen minutes or a fraction thereof and
Rs. 20 per 15 minutes in case the information is
required under section 7 of the Act, for the inspection
of record/document.
(iii) The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the
competent authority from time to time.
(iv) Every page of information to be supplied shall be duly
authenticated and shall bear the seal of the officer
concerned supplying the information.
(v) During inspection the applicant shall not be allowed to
take the photograph of the record/document. The applicant
shall not cause any hindrance to the Office work and shall
cooperate with the staff and complete the inspection as soon
as possible. The Public Information Officer concerned shall
have the right to fix the time and date of the inspection
according to administrative convenience and his/her
decision shall be final.
(vi) A fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal on form F
shall be paid by way of adhesive court fee stamps or
demand drafts/ bankers cheque/ Indian postal orders in
favour of Registrar , Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh or in any other form so determined by the
competent authority from time to time.
8. Appeal:
(i) Any person-
(a) who fails to get a response in Form C or Form D from
the authorized person within thirty days of submission of
Form A, or
(b) is aggrieved by the response received within the
prescribed period, appeal in Form F to the Appellate
Authority and affix fee for appeal as per rule 7.
(ii) On receipt of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall
acknowledge the receipt of appeal and after giving the
applicant an opportunity of being heard, shall endeavour to
dispose it of within thirty days
Vol. V. 5 Ch. 7-K
from the date, on which it is presented and send a copy of
the decision to the authorized person concerned.
(iii) In case the appeal is allowed, the information shall be
supplied to the applicant by the authorized person within
such period as may be ordered by the Appellate Authority.
This period shall not exceed thirty days from the date of the
receipt of the order.
9. Penalties :
(i) Whoever being bound to supply information fails to
furnish the information asked for, under the Act, within the
time specified or fails to communicate the rejection order,
shall be liable to pay a penalty up to fifty rupees per day for
the delayed period beyond thirty days subject to a maximum
of five hundred rupees per application, filed under rule 3 as
may be determined by the appellate authority.
(ii) Where the information supplied is found to be false in
any material particular and which the person is bound to
supply it knows and has reason to believe it to be false or
does not believe it to be true, the person supplying the
information shall be liable to pay a penalty of one thousand
rupees, to be imposed by the appellate authority.
10. Suo motu publication of Information by public
authorities:
(i) The public authority shall suo motu publish
information as per sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act by
publishing booklets and / or folders and / or pamphlets and
update these publications every year as required by sub-
section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.
(ii) Such information shall also be made available to the
public through information counters, medium of internet
and display on notice board at conspicuous places in the
office of the Authorized Person and the Appellate Authority.
11. Maintenance of Records:
(i) The authorized person shall maintain records of all
applications received for supply of information and fee
charged.
(ii) The appellate authority shall maintain records of all
appeals filed before it and fee charged.
Vol. V. 6 Ch. 7-K
FORM A
Form of application for seeking information
(See rule 3)
I.D. No..
(For official use)
To
The authorized person

1. Name of the applicant

2. Address
3. Particulars of the information sought
(a) Concerned department: High Court
(b) Period for which information is sought
(c) Other details, if any
4. A Court fee of Rs.has been affixed on the
application
Place: Signature of the Applicant
Date: E-mail address, if any..
Telephone No.(Office)..
(Residence)..
Note:
(i) Please ensure that the Form A is complete in all
respect and there is no ambiguity in providing the details of
information required.
Vol. V. 7 Ch. 7-K
FORM B
Acknowledgement of Application in Form A
I.D. No. Dated
1. Received an application in Form A from Mr./Ms. resident
of under Section..of the Right to Information
Act, 2005.
2. The information is proposed to be given normally within
fifteen days and in case within thirty days from the date of
receipt of application and in case it is found that the
information asked for cannot be supplied, the rejection letter
shall be issued stating reason thereof.
3. The applicant is advised to contact the undersigned
on..between 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.
4. In case the applicant fails to turn up on the scheduled date(s),
the undersigned shall not be responsible for delay. if any.
1. The applicant shall have to deposit the balance fee, if any,
before collection of information.
2. The applicant may also consult Web-site of the department
from time to time to ascertain the status of his application.
Signature & Stamp of the Authorised Person
E-mail
Web-site
Telephone No.
Dated
Vol. V. 8 Ch. 7-K
FORM C
Outside the Jurisdiction of the authorized person
[rule 6( i)]
No .................................. Dated .
From

To
.
.
Sir/Madam.
Please refer to your application, I.D. No...
dated.. addressed to the undersigned regarding supply
of information on
2. The requested information does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the undersigned and, therefore, your
application is being returned herewith.
3. You are requested to apply to the concerned authorized
person
Yours faithfully,
Authorised Person
E-mail address
Web-site
Telephone No.
Vol. V. 9 Ch. 7-K
FORM D
Rejection Order
[rule 6(ii)]
No.. Dated.
From
.
.
To
.
.
Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application I.D. No.
date..addressed to the undersigned regarding
supply of information on
2. The information asked for cannot be supplied due to
following reasons:-
(i)
(i)
3. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,
2005, you may file an appeal to the Appellate Authority
within thirty days of the issue of this order.
Yours faithfully,
Authorised Person
E-mail address
Web-site
Telephone No.
Vol. V. 10 Ch. 7-K
FORM E
Form of Supply of information to the applicant
[rule 6(iii)]
No Dated.
From

..
To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I. D. No..
dated.addressed to the undersigned regarding supply
of information on
or
2. The information asked for is enclosed for reference.*
The following partly information is being enclosed.*
(i)
(ii)
The remaining information about the other aspects cannot
be supplied due to the following reasons:-
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
3. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction
of the undersigned.*
4. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you
may file an appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days
of the issue of this order.*.
Yours faithfully,
Authorised Person
E-mail address
Web-site
Telephone No.
*Strike out if not applicable.
Vol. V. 11 Ch. 7-K
FORM F
Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
[rule 8(i)]
I.D. No
(For official use)
To
Appellate Authority
Address :
1. Name of the Applicant
2. Address
3. Particulars of the authorized person
(a) Name
(b) Address
4. Date of submission of application in Form A
5 Date on which 30 days from submission of Form A is over
6. Reasons for appeal
(a) No response received in Form B or C within thirty days of
submission of Form A[8(i)(a)].
(b) Aggrieved by the response received within prescribed
period [8(i)(b)] [copy of the reply received be attached].
(c) Grounds for appeal.
7. Last date for filing the appeal. [See Rule 8(iii)]
7. Particulars of information :---
(i) Information requested
(ii) Subject
(iii) Period
7. A court fee of Rs. 100/- for appeal has been affixed.
Place Signature of Appellant
Date E-mail address, if any:
Telephone No. (Office)
(Residence)
Vol. V. 12 Ch. 7-K
Acknowledgement
I.D. No.. Dated
Received an Appeal application from Shri/Ms..
resident of ........................under Section 19 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
Signature of Receipt Clerk.
Appellate Authority
Telephone No.
E-mail address, Web-site
By order of Hon

bIe the Chief Justice and Judges.

(Sd.)..
Registrar General.]
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Correction Slip
No.140 Rules/II.D.4, dated 14-8-2007
The following Rules shall be added as Part G after Part F of
Chapter 5 of Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court, Volume-4.
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 28
read with Section 2(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of
2005), Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana are pleased to make the following rules,
namely :-
1. Short title and commencement :
(i) These Rules shall be called the Haryana Subordinate
Courts, (Right to Information) Rules, 2007.
(ii) These rules shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.
(iii) These rules shall be applicable to all the Subordinate
Courts in the State of Haryana.
2. Definitions :
(i) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) 'Act' means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005);
(b) 'Appendix' means the appendix appended to these rules;
(c) `Authorized Person means Public Information Officer and
Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
(d) `Appellate Authority means designated as such by the
Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
(e) `Administrative Officer means the Chief Administrative
Officer/Superintendent of the office of District & Sessions
Judge
(f) `Chief Ministerial Officer means'(the Senior most official
out of cadre of Readers/Judgment Writers/Stenographers
as case may be) of the Court presided over by the senior
most judicial Officer at the station having more than one
Court other than the District Head quarters and the Chief
Ministerial Officer of the Court where there is only one
Court at a station.
(g) 'Competent Authority' means the Hon'ble Administrative
Judge of the concerned Sessions Division as a delegatory of
the competent authority as defined in the Act.
(h) ' Form' means a form appended to these rules ;
(i) 'High Court' means the High Court of Punjab and Haryana;
(j) 'Section' means the section of the Act.
(ii) Words and expressions used but not defined in these Rules, shall
have the same meanings assigned to them in the Act.
3. Appl i cati on for seeki ng i nformati on:
Any person seeking information under the Act shall make an
application in Form 'A' to the authorized person, between 11.00
A.M. to 1.00 P.M., on a Court working day and shall deposit
application fee as per Rule 7 by paying adhesive court fee, or in
any other form so determined by the competent authority from
time to time.
Provided that a person, who makes a request through
electronic form, shall ensure that the requisite fee is deposited
with the authorized person, in the manner mentioned above,
within seven days of his sending the request through electronic
form, failing which, the application shall be treated as dismissed.
Provided further that the date of application shall be
deemed to be the date of deposit of the entire fee or the balance
fee or deficit amount of the fee to the authorised person.
4. Exemption from disclosure of information.
The information specified under Section 8 of the Act shall
not be disclosed and made available and in particular the
following information shall not be disclosed:-
1. The information which relates to judicial functions and duties
of the Court and matter incidental and ancillary thereto shall not
be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.
Provided that the question as to which information relates to
judicial functions, duties of Court and mater incidental and
ancillary or of confidentiality shall be decided by the
Competent Authority or his delegate, whose decision shall be
final.
2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any
examination/selection process conducted by the District &
Sessions Judge under Haryana Subordinate Courts
Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time.
The question of confidentiality shall be decided by the
Competent Authority, and in case of the information relating to a
Sessions Division by the Administrative Judge of the said
Sessions Division acting as a delegatee of the competent
authority, whose decision shall be final.

5. Del eted.
6. Disposal of application by the authorized person.
(i) If the requested information does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the authorized person, he shall order return of
the application to the applicant in Form `C as expeditiously as
possible in any case within 30 days from the date of receipt of
the application, advising the applicant, wherever possible,
about the authority concerned to whom the application should
be made. The application fee deposited in such cases shall
not be refunded.
(ii) If the requested information falls within the authorized
persons jurisdiction and also in one or more of the categories
of restrictions listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rule 5
above and exemptions detailed in Rule 4 above, the authorized
person, on being satisfied, will issue the rejection order in Form
`D as soon as practicable, normally within fifteen days and in
any case not later than thirty days from the date of the receipt
of the application.
(iii) If the requested information falls within the authorized
persons jurisdiction, but not in one or more of the categories
listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 above,
the authorized person, on being so satisfied, shall supply the
information to the applicant in Form `E, falling within its
jurisdiction. In case the information sought is partly outside the
jurisdiction of the authorized person or partly falls in the
categories listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the authorized
person shall supply only such information as is permissible
under the Act and is within its own jurisdiction and reject the
remaining part giving reasons thereof.

( i v) The i nf or mat i on s hal l be s uppl i ed as s oon as
practicable, normally within fifteen days and in any case not
later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the
application on deposit of the balance amount, if any, to the
authorized person, before collection of the information. A
proper acknowledgment shall be obtained from the applicant
in token of receipt of information.
(v) Deleted
7. Charging of Fee.
(i) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply of
information at the following rates, :-
Sr. No. Description of information Price/fees in rupees
(A)
Where the information is available in
the form of a priced publication.
On printed price.
(B) For other than priced publication
Rupees ten per page
and rupees twenty in
case the information
i s r equi r ed under
section 7 of the Act
with minimum of Rs.
Fifty per application.
(C)
Where information is available in
electronic form and is to be supplied
in electronics form e.g. Floppy, CD
etc.
Rupees one hundred
p e r f l o p p y a n d
Rupees two hundred
per CD.
(D)
Information relating to tenders
documents/bids/quotation/business
contract.
Rupees Five
hundred per
application.

(ii) The fee for inspection of documents or record shall be Rs. 10/-
per fifteen minutes or a fraction thereof and Rs. 20 per 15
minutes in case the information is required under section 7 of the
Act, for the inspection of record/document.
(iii) The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the competent
authority from time to time.
(iv) Every page of information to be supplied shall be duly
authenticated and shall bear the seal of the officer concerned
supplying the information.
(v) During inspection the applicant shall not be allowed to take the
photograph of the record/document. The applicant shall not
cause any hindrance to the Office work and shall cooperate with
the staff and complete the inspection as soon as possible. The
Public Information Officer concerned shall have the right to fix the
time and date of the inspection according to administrative
convenience and his/her decision shall be final.
(vi) A Court fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal shall be affixed on
the application for appeal in Form F.
8. Appeal.
(i) Any person
(a) who fails to get a response in Form C or Form D from the
authorized person within thirty days of submission of Form
A, or
(b) is aggrieved by the response received within the prescribed
period, appeal in Form `F to the Appellate Authority and
affix fee for appeal as per rule 7.
(ii) On receipt of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall
acknowledge the receipt of appeal and after giving the
applicant an opportunity of being heard, shall endeavour to
dispose it of within thirty days from the date, on which it is
presented and send a copy of the decision to the authorized person
concerned.
(iii) In case the appeal is allowed, the information shall be supplied to
the applicant by the authorized person within such period as may
be ordered by the Appellate Authority. This period shall not
exceed thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.
9. Penalties.
(i) Whoever being bound to supply information fails to furnish the
information asked for, under the Act, within the time specified or
fails to communicate the rejection order, shall be liable to pay a
penalty up to fifty rupees per day for the delayed period beyond
thirty days subject to a maximum of five hundred rupees per
application, filed under rule 3 as may be determined by the
appellate authority.
(ii) Where the information supplied is found to be false in any
material particular and which the person is bound to supply it
knows and has reason to believe it to be false or does not
believeit to be true, the person supplying the information shall
be liable to pay a penalty of one thousand rupees, to be imposed
by the appellate authority.
10. Suo motu publication of Information by public authorities.
(i) The public authority shall suo motu publish information as per
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act by publishing booklets
and/or folders and/or pamphlets and up date these publications
every year as required by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.
(ii) Such information shall also be made available to the public
through information counters, medium of internet and display on
notice board at conspicuous places in the office of the authorized
person and the appellate authority.
11. Maintenance of Records.
(i)The authorized person shall maintain records of all applications
received for supply of information and fee charged.
(iii)The appellate authority shall maintain records of all appeals
filed before it and fee charged.





FORM A
Form of application for seeking information
(See rule 3)
I.D. No. _________
(For official use)
To
The authorized person.
1, Name of the Applicant
2 . A d d r e s s
3 . Par t i cul ar s of i nf or mat i on s ought -
(a) Concerned department District Courts Sub Divisional Courts
(b) Per i od for whi ch i nfor mat i on i s sought
(c) Other details, if any
4. A Court fee of Rs ............. has been affixed on the application.
Place, Signature of Applicant
Date E-mail address, if any, :-
Telephone No. (Office)...
(Residence)...
Note:
(i) Please ensure that the Form A is complete in all respect and there is no
ambiguity in providing the details of information required.

















FORM B
Acknowledgment of Application in Form A
I.D. No. Dated
1. Received an application in Form A from Mr./Ms resident of under
Section
_____ of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. The information is proposed to be given normally within fifteen days and
in
case within thirty days from the date of receipt of application and in case it is
found that the information asked for cannot be supplied, the rejection letter
shall be issued stating reason thereof.
3. The applicant is advised to contact the undersigned on __ between 11
A.M. to 1.00 P.M.
4. In case the applicant fails to turn up on the scheduled date(s), the
undersigned shall not be responsible for delay, if any.
5. The applicant shall have to deposit the balance fee, if any, before
collection
of information.
6. The applicant may also consult Web site of the department from time to
time
to ascertain the status of his application.
Signature & Stamp of the Authorised Person
E-mail
Web-site
Telephone No.
Dated














FORM C
Outside the Jurisdiction of the authorized person
[rule
6(i)]No. Dated:
From

To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No......... dat ed . addressed to the
undersigned regarding supply of information on __________
2. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
undersigned and, therefore, your application is being returned herewith.
3. You are requested to apply to the concerned authorized person.
Yours faithfully,
Authorised Person
E-mail address
Web-site
Telephone No.


















FORM D
Rejection Order
[rule
6(ii)]No. Dated
From

To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No .... dated ...... addressed to t he
undersigned regarding supply of information on _________
2. The information asked for cannot be supplied due to following reasons:-
(i)
(ii)
3. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you may file an
appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.
Yours faithfully,
Authorised
PersonE-mail
address
Web-site
Telephone No.














FORM E
Form of Supply of information to the applicant
[rule 6(iii)]
No. ____________________ Dated ________
From

To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No .... dated ..... addressed to t he
undersigned regarding supply of information on _________
or
2. The information asked for is enclosed for reference.*
The following partly information is being enclosed.*
(i)
(ii)
The remaining information about the other aspects cannot be supplied due to
following reasons:-*
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
3. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
undersigned.*
4. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you may file an
appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.*
Yours faithfully,
Authorised
PersonE-mail
address
Web-site
Telephone No.
* Strike out if not applicable.




FORM F
Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
[rule 8(i)]
I.D. No.
To (for official use)
Appellate Authority
Address:
1. Name of the Applicant
2 . A d d r e s s
3 . Particulars of the authorized person
( a ) N a m e
( b ) A d d r e s s
4. Date of submission of application in Form A
5. Date on which 30 days from submission of Form A is over
6. Reasons for appeal
(a) No response received in Form B, or C within thirty days of
submission
of Form A [8(i)(a)].
(b) Aggrieved by the response received within prescribed period
[8(i)(b)]
[copy of the reply received be attached].
(c) Grounds for appeal.
7. Last date for filing the appeal. [See Rule 8(iii)]
8. Particulars of Information
( i ) I n f o r ma t i o n r e q u e s t e d
( i i ) S u b j e c t
(iii) Period.
9. A court fee of Rs.100/- for appeal has been affixed.
Place Signature of Appellant
Date E-mail Address, if any:
Telephone No. (Office)
(Residence)




Acknowledgment
I.D. No. Dated
Received an Appeal application from Shri/
Ms _______________________________________________ resident of
______________ under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Signatures of Receipt Clerk,
Appellate Authority
Telephone No.
E-Mail Address Web Site
BY ORDER OF HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES
REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NOTIFICATION
No. 325 Rules/II.D.4, Dated 16-8-2007
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1) and
(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Hon'ble the Chief Justice and
Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court have been pleased to
designate the following officers as the Assistant Public Information
Officers, Public Information Officers and the First Appellate Authorities
for the Subordinate Courts of Haryana, as required under Section 19 of
the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Sr.
No.
Name of the Court
Assistant
Public
Information
Officers
Public
Information
Officers
Appellate Authority
1
a)Court of District and
S e s s i o n s J u d g e a n d
Courts of Additional District
and Sessions Judges at
District head quarters.
b) Courts of Additional
Distt. & Sessions Judge at
places where there is no
District & Sessions Judge
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of
the Court of
District

&
Sessions
Judge
Sr.Ahalmed/
Stenogra-
pher
Chief
Administrative
officer/ Supdt.
in the office of
District &
Sessions
Judge
Chief

Ministerial
Officer of the
Court of
Senior most
Additional
District &
Sessions
Judge
District and
Sessions Judge of
t he r es pect i ve
Sessions Division
Senior most
Additional District
and Sessions
Judge.
2
Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of
the Court
Clerk of Court
of the office of
t h e C i v i l
Judge (Sr.
Divn.)
Civil Judge(Sr.
Div.)
3
Courts of Chief Judicial
Magistrate
Senior Most
Ahalmed/ /
Stenograp-
her
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Court
Chief Judicial
Magistrate
4
Courts of Civil Judges
situated at places other
than the District Head
Quarters.
Senior most
Ahalmed/Ste

no-grapher
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Senior most
Judicial
Officer
Senior most
Judicial Officer.
5
Courts of Additional Civil
Judge (Sr. Division) or
Court of Sr . Most Civil
Judge at Sub Divisional
level
Senior most
Ahalmed/Ste
no-grapher
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Senior most
Judicial
Officer
Senior most
Judicial Officer.

BY ORDER OF HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES
REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Correction slip
No.142 Rules/II.D.4. Dated 14-8-2007
The following Rules shall be added as Part F after Part E of
Chapter 5 of Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court, Volume-4.
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 28
read with Section 2(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of
2005), Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana are pleased to make the following rules,
namely :-
1. Short title and commencement :
(i) These Rules shall be called the Punjab Subordinate
Courts, (Right to Information) Rules, 2007.
(ii) These rules shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.
(iii) These rules shall be applicable to all the Subordinate
Courts in the State of Punjab.
2. Definitions :
(i) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) 'Act' means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005);
(b) 'Appendix' means the appendix appended to these rules;
(c) `Authorized Person means Public Information Officer and
Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
(d) `Appellate Authority means designated as such by the
Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
(e) `Administrative Officer means the Chief Administrative
Officer/Superintendent of the office of District & Sessions
Judge
(f) `Chief Ministerial Officer means'(the Senior most official out
of cadre of Readers/Judgment Writers/Stenographers as
case may be) of the Court presided over by the senior
most judicial Officer at the station having more than one
Court other than the District Head quarters and the Chief
Ministerial Officer of the Court where there is only one
Court at a station.
(g) 'Competent Authority' means the Hon'ble Administrative
Judge of the concerned Sessions Division as a delegatory
of the competent authority as defined in the Act.
(h) ' Form' means a form appended to these rules ;
(i) 'High Court' means the High Court of Punjab and Haryana;
(j) 'Section' means the section of the Act.
(ii) Words and expressions used but not defined in these Rules, shall
have the same meanings assigned to them in the Act.
3. Appl i cati on for seeki ng i nformati on:
Any person seeking information under the Act shall make an
application in Form 'A' to the authorized person, between 11.00
A.M. to 1.00 P.M., on a Court working day and shall deposit
application fee as per Rule 7 by paying adhesive court fee, or in
any other form so determined by the competent authority from
time to time.
Provided that a person, who makes a request through
electronic form, shall ensure that the requisite fee is deposited
with the authorized person, in the manner mentioned above,
within seven days of his sending the request through electronic
form, failing which, the application shall be treated as dismissed.
Provided further that the date of application shall be
deemed to be the date of deposit of the entire fee or the balance
fee or deficit amount of the fee to the authorised person.
4. Exemption from disclosure of information.
The information specified under Section 8 of the Act shall
not be disclosed and made available and in particular the
following information shall not be disclosed:-
1. The information which relates to judicial functions and
duties of the Court and matter incidental and ancillary thereto
shall not be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.
Provided that the question as to which information relates to
judicial functions, duties of Court and mater incidental and
ancillary or of confidentiality shall be decided by the
Competent Authority or his delegate, whose decision shall be
final.
2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any
examination/selection process conducted by the District &
Sessions Judge under Punjab Subordinate Courts
Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time.
The question of confidentiality shall be decided by the
Competent Authority, and in case of the information relating to a
Sessions Division by the Administrative Judge of the said
Sessions Division acting as a delegatee of the competent
authority, whose decision shall be final.

5. Del eted.
6. Disposal of application by the authorized person.
(i) If the requested information does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the authorized person, he shall order return of
the application to the applicant in Form `C as expeditiously as
possible in any case within 30 days from the date of receipt of
the application, advising the applicant, wherever possible,
about the authority concerned to whom the application should
be made. The application fee deposited in such cases shall
not be refunded.
(ii) If the requested information falls within the authorized
persons jurisdiction and also in one or more of the categories
of restrictions listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rule 5
above and exemptions detailed in Rule 4 above, the authorized
person, on being satisfied, will issue the rejection order in Form
`D as soon as practicable, normally within fifteen days and in
any case not later than thirty days from the date of the receipt
of the application.
(iii) If the requested information falls within the authorized
persons jurisdiction, but not in one or more of the categories
listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 above,
the authorized person, on being so satisfied, shall supply the
information to the applicant in Form `E, falling within its
jurisdiction. In case the information sought is partly outside the
jurisdiction of the authorized person or partly falls in the
categories listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the authorized
person shall supply only such information as is permissible
under the Act and is within its own jurisdiction and reject the
remaining part giving reasons thereof.
(iv) The information shall be supplied as soon as practicable,
normally within fifteen days and in any case not later than thirty
days from the date of the receipt of the application on deposit of
the balance amount, if any, to the authorized person, before
collection of the information. A proper acknowledgment shall be
obtained from the applicant in token of receipt of information.
(v) Deleted.
7. Charging of Fee.
(i) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply of
information at the following rates, :-
Sr. No. Description of information Price/fees in rupees
(A)
Where the information is available in
the form of a priced publication.
On printed price.
(B) For other than priced publication
Rupees ten per page
and rupees twenty in
case the information
i s r equi r ed under
section 7 of the Act
with minimum of Rs.
Fifty per application.
(C)
Where information is available in
electronic form and is to be supplied
in electronics form e.g. Floppy, CD
etc.
Rupees one hundred
p e r f l o p p y a n d
Rupees two hundred
per CD.
(D)
Information relating to tenders
documents/bids/quotation/business
contract.
Rupees Five
hundred per
application.

(ii) The fee for inspection of documents or record shall be Rs. 10/-
per fifteen minutes or a fraction thereof and Rs. 20 per 15
minutes in case the information is required under section 7 of the
Act, for the inspection of record/document.
(iii) The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the competent
authority from time to time.
(iv) Every page of information to be supplied shall be duly
authenticated and shall bear the seal of the officer concerned
supplying the information.
(v) During inspection the applicant shall not be allowed to take the
photograph of the record/document. The applicant shall not
cause any hindrance to the Office work and shall cooperate with
the staff and complete the inspection as soon as possible. The
Public Information Officer concerned shall have the right to fix the
time and date of the inspection according to administrative
convenience and his/her decision shall be final.
(vi) A Court fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal shall be affixed
on the application for appeal in Form F.
8. Appeal.
(i) Any person
(a) who fails to get a response in Form C or Form D from the
authorized person within thirty days of submission of Form
A, or
(b) is aggrieved by the response received within the prescribed
period, appeal in Form `F to the Appellate Authority and
affix fee for appeal as per rule 7.
(ii) On receipt of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall
acknowledge the receipt of appeal and after giving the
applicant an opportunity of being heard, shall endeavour to
dispose it of within thirty days from the date, on which it is
presented and send a copy of the decision to the authorized
person concerned.
(iii) In case the appeal is allowed, the information shall be supplied to
the applicant by the authorized person within such period as
may be ordered by the Appellate Authority. This period shall
not exceed thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.
9. Penalties.
(i) Whoever being bound to supply information fails to furnish the
information asked for, under the Act, within the time specified or
fails to communicate the rejection order, shall be liable to pay a
penalty up to fifty rupees per day for the delayed period beyond
thirty days subject to a maximum of five hundred rupees per
application, filed under rule 3 as may be determined by the
appellate authority.
(ii) Where the information supplied is found to be false in any
material particular and which the person is bound to supply it
knows and has reason to believe it to be false or does not
believeit to be true, the person supplying the information shall
be liable to pay a penalty of one thousand rupees, to be
imposed by the appellate authority.
10. Suo motu publication of Information by public authorities.
(i) The public authority shall suo motu publish information as per
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act by publishing booklets
and/or folders and/or pamphlets and up date these publications
every year as required by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.
(ii) Such information shall also be made available to the public
through information counters, medium of internet and display on
notice board at conspicuous places in the office of the authorized
person and the appellate authority.
11. Maintenance of Records.
(i)The authorized person shall maintain records of all applications
received for supply of information and fee charged.
(ii)The appellate authority shall maintain records of all appeals
filed before it and fee charged.
FORM A
Form of application for seeking information
(See rule 3)
I.D. No. _________
(For official use)
To
The authorized person.
1, Name of the Applicant
2 . A d d r e s s
3 . Par t i cul ar s of i nf or mat i on sought -
(a) Concerned department District Courts Sub Divisional Courts
(b) Period for which information is sought
(c) Other details, if any
4. A Court fee of Rs .................. has been affixed on the application.
Place, Signature of Applicant
Date E-mail address, if any, :-
Telephone No.
(Office)...
(Residence)...
Note:
(i) Please ensure that the Form A is complete in all respect and there is no
ambiguity in providing the details of information required.















FORM B
Acknowledgment of Application in Form
AI. D. No. Dated
1. Received an application in Form A from Mr./Ms resident of under
Section
_____ of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. The information is proposed to be given normally within fifteen days and
in
case within thirty days from the date of receipt of application and in case it is
found that the information asked for cannot be supplied, the rejection letter
shall be issued stating reason thereof.
3. The applicant is advised to contact the undersigned on __ between 11
A.M. to 1.00 P.M.
4. In case the applicant fails to turn up on the scheduled date(s), the
undersigned shall not be responsible for delay, if any.
5. The applicant shall have to deposit the balance fee, if any, before
collection
of information.
6. The applicant may also consult Web site of the department from time to
time
to ascertain the status of his application.
Signature & Stamp of the Authorised
PersonE-mail
Web-site
Telephone No.
Dated














FORM C
Outside the Jurisdiction of the authorized person
[rule
6(i)]No. Dated:
From

To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No......... dat ed . addressed to the
undersigned regarding supply of information on __________
2. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of
the
undersigned and, therefore, your application is being returned herewith.
3. You are requested to apply to the concerned authorized person.
Yours faithfully,
Authorised Person
E-mail address
Web-site
Telephone No.

















FORM D
Rejection Order
[rule 6(ii)]
No._____________________ Dated ________
From

To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No .... dated ...... addressed to t he
undersigned regarding supply of information on _________
2. The information asked for cannot be supplied due to following reasons:-
(i)
(ii)
3. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you may file an
appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.
Yours faithfully,
Authorised
PersonE-mail
address
Web-site
Telephone No.















FORM E
Form of Supply of information to the applicant
[rule 6(iii)]
No. ____________________ Dated ____
From

To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No ........ dated ..... addressed to t he
undersigned regarding supply of information on _________
or
2. The information asked for is enclosed for reference.*
The following partly information is being enclosed.*
(i)
(ii)
The remaining information about the other aspects cannot be supplied due to
following reasons:-*
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
3. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
undersigned.*
4. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you may file an
appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.*
Yours faithfully,
Authorised
Person E-mail
address
Web-site
Telephone No.
* Strike out if not applicable.
.

FORM F
Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
[rule 8(i)]
I.D. No.
To (for official use)
Appellate Authority
Address:
1. Name of the Applicant
2 . A d d r e s s
3 . Particulars of the authorized person
( a ) N a m e
( b ) A d d r e s s
4. Date of submission of application in Form A
5. Date on which 30 days from submission of Form A is over
6. Reasons for appeal
(a) No response received in Form B, or C within thirty days of
submission
of Form A [8(i)(a)].
(b) Aggrieved by the response received within prescribed period
[8(i)(b)]
[copy of the reply received be attached].
(c) Grounds for appeal.
7. Last date for filing the appeal. [See Rule 8(iii)]
8. Particulars of Information
( i ) I n f o r ma t i o n r e q u e s t e d
( i i ) S u b j e c t
(iii) Period.
9. A court fee of Rs. 100/- for appeal has been affixed.
Place Signature of Appellant
Date E-mail Address, if any:
Telephone No.
(Office)(Residence)




Acknowledgment
I.D. No. Dated
Received an Appeal application from Shri/
Ms _______________________________________________ resident of
______________ under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Signatures of Receipt Clerk,
Appellate Authority
Telephone No.
E-Mail Address Web Site
BY ORDER OF HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES
REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NOTIFICATION
No. 326 Rules/II.D.4, Dated 16-8-2007
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1)
and (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Hon'ble the Chief Justice
andJudges of Punjab and Haryana High Court have been pleased
to designate the following officers as the Assistant Public
Information Officers, Public Information Officers and the First
Appellate Authorities for the Subordinate Courts of Punjab, as
required under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Sr.
No.
Name of the Court
Assistant Public
Information
Officers
Public
Information
Officers
Appellate Authority
1
a)Court of District and
S e s s i o n s J u d g e a n d
Courts of Additional District
and Sessions Judges at
District head quarters.
b) Courts of Additional
Distt. & Sessions Judge at
places where there is no
District & Sessions Judge
Chief Ministerial
Officer of
the Court of
District &
Sessions Judge
Sr.Ahalmed/
Stenogra- pher
Chief
Administrative
officer/ Supdt.
in the office of
District &
Sessions
Judge
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Court of
Senior most
Additional
District &
Sessions
Judge
District and
Sessions Judge of
t he r e s pe ct i ve
Sessions Division
Senior most
Additional District
and Sessions
Judge.
2
Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division
Chief Ministerial
Officer of
the Court
Clerk of Court
of the office of
t h e C i v i l
Judge (Sr.
Divn.)
Civil Judge(Sr.
Div.)
3
Courts of Chief Judicial
Magistrate
Senior Most
Ahalmed/ /
Stenograp- her
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Court
Chief Judicial
Magistrate
4
Courts of Civil Judges
situated at places other
than the District Head
Quarters.
Senior most
Ahalmed/Ste no-
grapher

Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Senior most
Judicial
Officer
Senior most
Judicial Officer.
5
Courts of Judge Small
Cause
Chief
Ministerial Officer
of the respective
court.
Registrar,
Small Cause
Court.
Judge, Court of
Small Cause.
6 Courts of Additional Civil
Judge (Sr. Division) or
Court of Sr . Most Civil
Judge at Sub Divisional
level
Senior most
Ahalmed/Ste
no-grapher
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Senior most
Judicial
Officer
Senior most
Judicial Officer.

BY ORDER OF HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES
REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Correction slip
No.141 Rules/II.D.4. Dated 14-8-2007
The following Rules shall be added as Part H after Part G of
Chapter 5 of Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court, Volume-4.
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 28
read with Section 2(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of
2005), Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana are pleased to make the following rules,
namely :-
1. Short title and commencement :
(i) These Rules shall be called the Chandigarh Union Territory
Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007.
(ii) These rules shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.
(iii) These rules shall be applicable to all the Subordinate
Courts in the Union Territory, Chandigarh.
2. Definitions :
(i) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) 'Act' means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005);
(b) 'Appendix' means the appendix appended to these rules;
(c) `Authorized Person means Public Information Officer
and Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
(d) `Appellate Authority means designated as such by the
Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
(e) `Administrative Officer means the Chief Administrative
Officer/Superintendent of the office of District & Sessions
Judge
(f) `Chief Ministerial Officer means'(the Senior most official
out of cadre of Readers/Judgment Writers/Stenographers
as case may be) of the Court presided over by the senior
most judicial Officer at the station having more than one
Court other than the District Head quarters and the Chief
Ministerial Officer of the Court where there is only one
Court at a station.
(g) 'Competent Authority' means the Hon'ble Administrative
Judge of the concerned Sessions Division as a delegatory
of the competent authority as defined in the Act.
(h) ' Form' means a form appended to these rules ;
(i) 'High Court' means the High Court of Punjab and Haryana;
(j) 'Section' means the section of the Act.
(ii) Words and expressions used but not defined in these Rules, shall
have the same meanings assigned to them in the Act.
3. Appl i cati on for seeki ng i nformati on:
Any person seeking information under the Act shall make an
application in Form 'A' to the authorized person, between 11.00
A.M. to 1.00 P.M., on a Court working day and shall deposit
application fee as per Rule 7 by paying adhesive court fee, or in
any other form so determined by the competent authority from
time to time.
Provided that a person, who makes a request through
electronic form, shall ensure that the requisite fee is deposited
with the authorized person, in the manner mentioned above,
within seven days of his sending the request through electronic
form, failing which, the application shall be treated as dismissed.
Provided further that the date of application shall be
deemed to be the date of deposit of the entire fee or the balance
fee or deficit amount of the fee to the authorised person.
4. Exemption from disclosure of information.
The information specified under Section 8 of the Act shall
not be disclosed and made available and in particular the
following information shall not be disclosed:-
1. The information which relates to judicial functions and
duties of the Court and matter incidental and ancillary thereto
shall not be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.
Provided that the question as to which information relates to
judicial functions, duties of Court and mater incidental and
ancillary or of confidentiality shall be decided by the
Competent Authority or his delegate, whose decision shall be
final.
2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any
examination/selection process conducted by the District &
Sessions Judge under Chandigarh Union Territory
Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 as amended from time to
time.
The question of confidentiality shall be decided by the
Competent Authority, and in case of the information relating to a
Sessions Division by the Administrative Judge of the said
Sessions Division acting as a delegatee of the competent
authority, whose decision shall be final.
5. Del eted.
6. Disposal of application by the authorized person.
(i) If the requested information does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the authorized person, he shall order return of
the application to the applicant in Form `C as expeditiously as
possible in any case within 30 days from the date of receipt of
the application, advising the applicant, wherever possible,
about the authority concerned to whom the application should
be made. The application fee deposited in such cases shall
not be refunded.
(ii) If the requested information falls within the authorized
persons jurisdiction and also in one or more of the categories
of restrictions listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rule 5
above and exemptions detailed in Rule 4 above, the authorized
person, on being satisfied, will issue the rejection order in Form
`D as soon as practicable, normally within fifteen days and in
any case not later than thirty days from the date of the receipt
of the application.
(iii) If the requested information falls within the authorized
persons jurisdiction, but not in one or more of the categories
listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 above,
the authorized person, on being so satisfied, shall supply the
information to the applicant in Form `E, falling within its
jurisdiction. In case the information sought is partly outside the
jurisdiction of the authorized person or partly falls in the
categories listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the authorized
person shall supply only such information as is permissible
under the Act and is within its own jurisdiction and reject the
remaining part giving reasons thereof.
(iv) The information shall be supplied as soon as practicable,
normally within fifteen days and in any case not later than thirty
days from the date of the receipt of the application on deposit of
the balance amount, if any, to the authorized person, before
collection of the information. A proper acknowledgment shall be
obtained from the applicant in token of receipt of information.
(v) Deleted.
7. Charging of Fee.
(i) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply of
information at the following rates, :-
Sr. No. Description of information Price/fees in rupees
(A)
Where the information is available in
the form of a priced publication.
On printed price.
(B) For other than priced publication
Rupees ten per page
and rupees twenty in
case the information
i s r equi r ed under
section 7 of the Act
with minimum of Rs.
Fifty per application.
(C)
Where information is available in
electronic form and is to be supplied
in electronics form e.g. Floppy, CD
etc.
Rupees one hundred
p e r f l o p p y a n d
Rupees two hundred
per CD.
(D)
Information relating to tenders
documents/bids/quotation/business
contract.
Rupees Five
hundred per
application.

(ii) The fee for inspection of documents or record shall be Rs. 10/-
per fifteen minutes or a fraction thereof and Rs. 20 per 15
minutes in case the information is required under section 7 of the
Act, for the inspection of record/document.
(iii) The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the competent
authority from time to time.
(iv) Every page of information to be supplied shall be duly
authenticated and shall bear the seal of the officer concerned
supplying the information.
(v) During inspection the applicant shall not be allowed to take the
photograph of the record/document. The applicant shall not
cause any hindrance to the Office work and shall cooperate with
the staff and complete the inspection as soon as possible. The
Public Information Officer concerned shall have the right to fix the
time and date of the inspection according to administrative
convenience and his/her decision shall be final.
(vi) A Court fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal shall be affixed
on the application for appeal in Form F.
8. Appeal.
( i) Any person
(a) who fails to get a response in Form C or Form D from the
authorized person within thirty days of submission of Form
A, or
(b) is aggrieved by the response received within the prescribed
period, appeal in Form `F to the Appellate Authority and
affix fee for appeal as per rule 7.
(ii) On receipt of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall
acknowledge the receipt of appeal and after giving the
applicant an opportunity of being heard, shall endeavour to
dispose it of within thirty days from the date, on which it is
presented and send a copy of the decision to the authorized
person concerned.
(iii) In case the appeal is allowed, the information shall be supplied to
the applicant by the authorized person within such period as
may be ordered by the Appellate Authority. This period shall
not exceed thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.
9. Penalties.
(i) Whoever being bound to supply information fails to furnish the
information asked for, under the Act, within the time specified or
fails to communicate the rejection order, shall be liable to pay a
penalty up to fifty rupees per day for the delayed period beyond
thirty days subject to a maximum of five hundred rupees per
application, filed under rule 3 as may be determined by the
appellate authority.
(ii) Where the information supplied is found to be false in any
material particular and which the person is bound to supply it
knows and has reason to believe it to be false or does not
believeit to be true, the person supplying the information shall
be liable to pay a penalty of one thousand rupees, to be
imposed by the appellate authority.
10. Suo motu publication of Information by public authorities.(i)
The public authority shall suo motu publish information as per
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act by publishing booklets and/or
folders and/or pamphlets and up date these publications every year as
required by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.
(ii) Such information shall also be made available to the public
through information counters, medium of internet and display on
notice board at conspicuous places in the office of the authorized
person and the appellate authority.
11. Maintenance of Records.
(i)The authorized person shall maintain records of all applications
received for supply of information and fee charged.
(iv)The appellate authority shall maintain records of all appeals
filed before it and fee charged.










FORM A
Form of application for seeking information
(See rule 3)
I.D. No. _________
(For official use)
To
The authorized person.
1, Name of the Applicant
2 . A d d r e s s
3 . Par t i cul ar s of i nf or mat i on s ought
(a) Concerned department District Courts Sub Divisional Courts
(b) Per i od for whi ch i nfor mat i on i s sought
(c) Other details, if any
4. A Court fee of Rs ............. has been affixed on the application.
Place, Signature of Applicant
Date E-mail address, if any, :-
Telephone No. (Office)...
(Residence)...
Note:
(i) Please ensure that the Form A is complete in all respect and
there is no ambiguity in providing the details of information required.


















FORM B
Acknowledgment of Application in Form
AI. D. No. Dated
1. Received an application in Form A from Mr./Ms resident of under
Section
_____ of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. The information is proposed to be given normally within fifteen days and
in
case within thirty days from the date of receipt of application and in case it is
found that the information asked for cannot be supplied, the rejection letter
shall be issued stating reason thereof.
3. The applicant is advised to contact the undersigned on __ between 11
A.M. to 1.00 P.M.
4. In case the applicant fails to turn up on the scheduled date(s), the
undersigned shall not be responsible for delay, if any.
5. The applicant shall have to deposit the balance fee, if any, before
collection
of information.
6. The applicant may also consult Web site of the department from time to
time
to ascertain the status of his application.
Signature & Stamp of the Authorised
PersonE-mail
Web-site
Telephone No.
Dated














FORM C
Outside the Jurisdiction of the authorized person
[rule
6(i)]No. Dated:
From

To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No......... dat ed . addressed to the
undersigned regarding supply of information on __________
2. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of
the
undersigned and, therefore, your application is being returned herewith.
3. You are requested to apply to the concerned authorized person.
Yours faithfully,
Authorised Person
E-mail address
Web-site
Telephone No.

















FORM D
Rejection Order
[rule
6(ii)]No. Dated
From

To
Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No .... dated ..... addressed to t he
undersigned regarding supply of information on _________
2. The information asked for cannot be supplied due to following reasons:-
(i)
(ii)
3. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you may file an
appealto the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.
Yours faithfully,
Authorised
PersonE-mail
address
Web-site
Telephone No.















FORM E
Form of Supply of information to the applicant
[rule
6(iii)]No. Dated
From

To

Sir/Madam,
Please refer to your application, I.D. No .... dated ..... addressed to t he
undersigned regarding supply of information on _________
or
2. The information asked for is enclosed for reference.*
The following partly information is being
enclosed.* (i)
(i i)
The remaining information about the other aspects cannot be supplied due to
following reasons:-*
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
3. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
undersigned.*
4. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you may file an
appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.*
Yours faithfully,
Authorised
PersonE-mail
address
Web-site
Telephone No.
* Strike out if not applicable.





FORM F
Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
[rule 8(i)]
I.D. No.
To (for official use)
Appellate Authority
Address:
1. Name of the Applicant
2 . A d d r e s s
3 . Particulars of the authorized person
( a ) N a m e
( b ) A d d r e s s
4. Date of submission of application in Form A
5. Date on which 30 days from submission of Form A is over
6. Reasons for appeal
(a) No response received in Form B, or C within thirty days of
submission
of Form A [8(i)(a)].
(b) Aggrieved by the response received within prescribed period
[8(i)(b)]
[copy of the reply received be attached].
(c) Grounds for appeal.
7. Last date for filing the appeal. [See Rule 8(iii)]
8. Particulars of Information
( i ) I n f o r ma t i o n r e q u e s t e d
( i i ) S u b j e c t
(iii) Period.
9. A court fee of Rs. 100/- for appeal has been affixed.
Place Signature of Appellant
Date E-mail Address, if any:
Telephone No.
(Office)(Residence)




Acknowledgment
I.D. No. Dated
Received an Appeal application from Shri/
Ms _______________________________________________ resident of
_______________ under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Signatures of Receipt
Clerk,Appellate Authority
Telephone No.
E-Mail Address Web Site
BY ORDER OF HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES
REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


NOTIFICATION
No.327 Rules/II.D.4, Dated 16-8-2007
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1)
and (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Hon'ble the Chief Justice
andJudges of Punjab and Haryana High Court have been pleased
to designate the following officers as the Assistant Public
Information Officers, Public Information Officers and the First
Appellate Authorities for the Subordinate Courts of U.T.
Chandigarh, as required under Section 19 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005.
Sr.
No.
Name of the Court
Assistant
Public
Information
Officers
Public
Information
Officers
Appellate Authority
1
a)Court of District and
S e s s i o n s J u d g e a n d
Courts of Additional District
and Sessions Judges at
District head quarters.
b) Courts of Additional
Distt. & Sessions Judge at
places where there is no
District & Sessions Judge
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of
the Court of
District

&
Sessions
Judge
Sr.Ahalmed/
Stenogra-
pher
Chief
Administrative
officer/ Supdt.
in the office of
District &
Sessions
Judge
Chief

Ministerial
Officer of the
Court of
Senior most
Additional
District &
Sessions
Judge
District and
Sessions Judge of
t he r es pect i ve
Sessions Division
Senior most
Additional District
and Sessions
Judge.
2
Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of
the Court
Clerk of Court
of the office of
t h e C i v i l
Judge (Sr.
Divn.)
Civil Judge(Sr.
Div.)
3
Courts of Chief Judicial
Magistrate
Senior Most
Ahalmed/ /
Stenograp-
her
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Court
Chief Judicial
Magistrate
4
Courts of Civil Judges
situated at places other
than the District Head
Quarters.
Senior most
Ahalmed/Ste

no-grapher
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Senior most
Judicial
Officer
Senior most
Judicial Officer.
5
Courts of Additional Civil
Judge (Sr. Division) or
Court of Sr . Most Civil
Judge at Sub Divisional
level
Senior most
Ahalmed/Ste

no-grapher
Chief
Ministerial
Officer of the
Senior most
Judicial
Officer
Senior most
Judicial Officer.

BY ORDER OF HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES
REGISTRAR GENERAL
The Right To Information (Regulation Of Fee And Cost) Rules,
2005
Published vide G.S.R. 336, dated 16.9.2005 and published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(i), dated 25.9.2005.
22/960
In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 27 of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the Central Government hereby makes the
following rules, namely:
1. Short title and commencement .(1) These rules may be called The Right to Information
(Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Definitions .In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) Act means the Right to Information Act, 2005;
(b) section means section of the Act;
(c) all other words and expressions used herein but not defined and defined in the Act
shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Act.
3. A request for obtaining information under sub-section (1) of section 6 shall be accompanied
by an application fee of rupees ten by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or
bankers cheque [or Indian Postal Order] payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority.
4. For providing the information under sub-section (1) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by
way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal
Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority at the following rates:
(a) rupees two for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied;
(b) actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper;
(c) actual cost or price for samples or models; and
[(d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each
subsequent hour (or fraction thereof).]
5. For providing the information under sub-section (5) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by
way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal
Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority at the following rates:
(a) for information provided in diskette or floppy rupees fifty per diskette or floppy; and
(b) for information provided in printed form at the price fixed for such publication or rupees
two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication.
Chawla Publications (P) Ltd.
Page 1 sur 1 Right To Information (Regulation Of Fee And Cost) Rules, 2005
12/2/2013 http://heserver/act960.htm
ANNEXURE P/

N0.F. 1/5/2011 -IR
Government of lndia
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
******
North Block, New Delhi
Dated April 26,201 1
1. The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs (except J&K)
2. The Registrars of all High Courts
3. The Registrar of the Supreme Court
Subject:- Harmonization of fee payable under the Right to lnformation
Act. 2005
Sir.
Sections 27 and 28 of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005 empower
the appropriate Governments and the Competent Authorities to make
rules to prescribe, inter-alia, the fees payable under the Act. In exercise
of the powers. the Central Government, State Governments, High Courts
etc. have notified rules. It has been observed that the fee prescribed
by different appropriate Governments/Competent Authorities is at great
variance.
2. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission has, in this regard
recommended that the States should frame Rules regarding application
fee in harmony with the Central Rules and ensure that the fee should not
become a disincentive for using the right to information.
3. All the States/Competent Authorities are, therefore, requested to
kindly review their Fee Rules and to prescribe fee in consonance with the
fee prescribed by the Government of lndia. A copy of the Right to
lnformation (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 notified by the
Government of lndia is enclosed for ready reference.
4. Kindly inform us of the action taken in this regard.

Yours Faithfully
KG Verma
Sd/-
Director

THE
CENTRAL
INFORMATION COMMISSION (APPEAL PROCEDURE)
RULES, 2005

CONTENTS

Rule

1. Short Title and commencement

2. Definitions

3. Contents of appeal

4. Documents to accompany appeal

5. Procedure in deciding appeal

6. Service of notice by Commission

7. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant

8. Order of the Commission


















THE
CENTRAL
INFORMATION COMMISSION (APPEAL PROCEDURE)
RULES, 2005

NOTIFICATION
F.No. 1/4/2005-IR, dated:28th Ocotober, 2005
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated 28-10-2005
G.S.R. 650(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (e) and (f) of
subsection (2) of section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the
Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:-
1. Short Title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Central
Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official
Gazette.
2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Act" means the Right to Information Act, 2005 ;
(b) "Section" means section of the Act.
(c) "Commission" means the Central Information Commission ;
(d) Words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Act,
shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act.
3. Contents of appeal.- An appeal to the Commission shall contain the following
information, namely.-
(i) name and address of the appellant ;
(ii) name and address of the Central Public Information Officer against the
decision of whom the appeal is preferred.
(iii) particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the appeal is
preferred ;
(iv) brief facts leading to the appeal ;
(v) If the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, the particulars of the
application, including number and date and name and address of the
Central Public Information Officer to whom the application was made ;
(vi) prayer or relief sought ;
(vii) grounds for the prayer or relief ;
(viii) verification by the appellant ; and
(ix) any other information which the Commission may deem necessary for
deciding the appeal.
4. Documents to accompany appeal.- Every appeal made to the Commission
shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely.
(i) self-attested copies of the orders or documents against which the appeal is
being preferred ;
(ii) copies of documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the
appeal ; and
(iii) an index of the documents referred to in the appeal.
5. Procedure in deciding appeal.- In deciding the appeal the Commission may.-
(i) hear oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned or
interested person ;
(ii) peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof ;
(iii) inquire through authorised officer further details or facts ;
(iv) hear Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant Public Information
Officer or such Senior Officer who decide the first appeal, or such person
against whom the complaint is made, as the case may be ;
(v) hear third party ; and
(vi) receive evidence on affidavits from Central Public Information Officer,
Central Assistant Public Information Officer, such Senior Officer who decide
the first appeal, such person against whom the complaint lies or the third
party.
6. Service of notice by Commission.- Notice to be issued by the Commission
may be served in any of the following modes, namely.-
(i) service by the party itself ;
(ii) by hand delivery (dasti) through Process Server ;
(iii) by registered post with acknowledgment due ; or
(iv) through Head of Office or Department.
7. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant.- (1) The appellant or
the complainant, as the case may be, shall in every case be informed of the date of
hearing at least seven clear days before that date.
(2) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion
at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the Commission be present in
person or through his duly authorised representative or may opt not to be present.
(3) Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to which
the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, is being prevented from attending
the hearing of the Commission, then, the Commission may afford the appellant or the
complainant, as the case may be, another opportunity of being heard before a final
decision is taken or take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit.
(4) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the
assistance of any person in the process of the appeal while presenting his points and the
person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.
8. Order of the Commission.- Order of the Commission shall be pronounced in
open proceedings and be in writing duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other
officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose.



CENTRAL I NFORMATI ON COMMI SSI ON
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01415 dated 29.8.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19

Appellant - Shri Keshav Kaushik
Respondent - High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh
Date of Hearing 17.11.2008
Date of Decision 21.11.2008

Facts:
By an application of 23.5.08 Shri Kaushik sought the following
information from CPIO of High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh:
1. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer
sheet no. 1148, paper V for General Knowledge
carrying 25 multiple choice questions written by me
on 22.2.2008 from 2 PM to 3 PM for Haryana
Superior J udicial Examination.

2. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer
sheet for paper II, Law (Subsidiary Subject) bearing
answer sheet no. 5148 dated 23.2.2008 written by me
in the morning session from 9 PM to 12 noon for
Haryana Superior J udicial Examination.

3. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer
sheet for paper I, Law (Core subject) bearing answer
sheet no. 6148 dated 23.2.2008 written by me in the
evening session from 2 PM to 5 PM for Haryana
Superior J udicial Examination.
4. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer
sheet for paper III, English Essay on legal topic
bearing answer sheet no. 5148 dated 24.2.2008
written by me in the morning session from 9 AM to 12
noon for Haryana Superior J udicial Examination.

5. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer
sheet for paper IV, Hindi Essay on a Social Topic
bearing answer sheet no. 7049 dated 24.2.2008
written by me in the evening session from 2PM to
5PM for Haryana Superior J udicial Examination.

6. Information regarding the 14 General vacancies/
posts to be filled for the post of Assistant District
Sessions J udge in the State of Haryana pursuant to
the notification dated 18.5.2007 and how many
candidates were taken from the bar against the
1
vacancies/ notification dated 18.5.2007 and how
many posts remain vacant category-wise in Haryana
Superior J udicial Recruitment.

7. Kindly provide information as to under what provision
of law the General Pool vacancies from the bar were
filled up by the candidates of Fast, Track Courts and
whether any written examination/ interview or
selection process was conducted in respect of the
recruitment/ appointment of Fast Track Courts J udges
i.e. Additional District Sessions J udges in the Fast
Track Courts in the State of Haryana.

The PIO in his reply dated 31.5.2008 refused to provide the
information desired by the appellant relying upon Rule 4 of RTI Rules
framed by the High Court in accordance with Section 28 of the RTI Act as
follows:
The requisite information cannot be supplied, as it falls
under clause C of rule 4 framed by the Honble Punjab &
Haryana High Court Under Section 28 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 called as High Court of Punjab &
Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 which is
reproduced below:
(C) Any Information affecting the confidentiality of any
examination/ selection process:
(I) conducted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
including for Punjab/ Haryana Civil Services (J udicial
Branch) and Punjab/ Haryana Superior J udicial
Services.

Thereafter appellant filed his 1
st
appeal before the Registrar (Admn)
HC of P&H on 12.6.08. In deciding the appeal on 16.8.08, the first
appellate authority Shri AS Narang held that PIO has rightly refused to
part with the information as the information sought by the appellant could
affect the confidentiality of the examination/ selection process, as follows:
The appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of
Honble Calcutta High Court in Pritam Rooj vs. University of
Calcutta, AIR 2008 Calcutta 118. As far as the information
sough for at Point No. 1 to 5 are concerned, I am of the
considered opinion that the PIO rightly refused to part with
the information, as the information sought for by the
appellant affected the confidentiality of the examination/
selection process. In so far as the judgment rendered by the
Honble Calcutta High Court in Pritam Roojs case (supra) is
concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the
case in hand. In the present case there are direct rules
2
framed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to
Information) rules, 2007 which prohibit parting with this
information. PIO is a creature of the Statute and is bound by
the rules. This Authority is also a creature of the Statute and
is also bound by the same. In view of the facts and
circumstances explained above, I am of the considered view
the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

The appellant then filed second appeal before the Commission on
27.6.08 which was decided by the Commission on 7.7.08 directing the
Registrar (Admn) of High Court of Punjab & Haryana to dispose of the
appeal within 15 working days but advising appellant Shri Kaushik that
were he to be dissatisfied with the response in 1
st
appeal he would be free
to move a second appeal u/s 19 sub-section (3) before us.

Now the appellant has filed a fresh appeal u/s 19 (3) on 28.8.2008 in
which he has sought the following relief:-
This Honble Commission may graciously be pleased
to direct the concerned Authority of Punjab & Haryana
High Court at Chandigarh to provide the information
sought by the appellant in his first application no.
212/APIO dated 24.5.2008 and in appeal no. RTI/AA/80
dated 2.7.2008 in the interest of justice.

And this Honble Commission may further graciously be
pleased to impose the penalty on the APIO/CPIO for not
providing the information and not deciding the appeal
within the statutory period.

The PIO and the first appellate authority had taken the plea of
exemption under Rule 4 of Punjab & Haryana High Court RTI rules framed
as competent authority u/s 28 of the RTI Act.

It is true that the competent authorities defined in sub-sections to
Sec. 2 sub-section (e) have been accorded with the power of making rules
u/s 28 ibid. But the purpose or rationale behind such power was to
facilitate the process of providing information to the information seeker.
But in the present situation Rule 4 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
(Right to Information) Rules, 2007 appears to have operated as a
hindrance in providing information to the applicant.

3
So as far as Rule 4 is concerned, it cannot stop the Commission
from directing the concerned authority to provide information to applicant if
we find the refusal in contradiction to the Act and therefore it is required
that we exercise our discretion in determining whether the supply of
duplicate evaluated copies of answer sheets is against the law.

The appeal was heard on 7.11.08. The following are present:
Appellant
1. Shri Keshav Kaushik

Respondents at NIC Studio, Chandigarh.
1. Shri A. S. Narang, First Appellate Authority &
Registrar of Admn. P&H High Court, Chandigarh
2. Shri Rajender Singh, PIO & J t. Registrar, P&H
High Court, Chandigarh

Shri A. S. Narang, Registrar (Admn) P&H High Court submitted that
they have received the notice of hearing only at 12.30 hrs. the same day
and had no time to prepare a response. Appellant Shri Kaushik on the
other hand submitted that he is already in Writ before the High Court
which is to be heard on 11.11.08 for which he needs the information
sought. Upon this Registrar (Admn) submitted that he will support
appellants plea for adjournment before the Honble J ustices hearing
arguments in appellants case on 11.11.08. On these grounds it was
agreed by both parties that the next hearing before us would be by video
conference on 17.11.08 at 4.00 p.m.

However, in the context of the present appeal, this Commission
brought to the notice of Registrar (Admn) High Court of P&H our decision
in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00124 Narendra Yadav vs. High Court of
Delhi announced on 13.12.07. In that case appellants prayer was for
disclosure of marks sheet together with cut off marks in DJ S mains and
written examination, as follows:
Honble The Chief J ustice directed that the matter be
placed before a Committee consisting of the Honble Ms.
Gita Mittal J ., Sh. A.K. Sikri, J . and Shri Mukul Mudgal, J . In
their submission of Oct 30, 2007, the Honble J ustices
recommended as follows:

4
The Committee has been consistently directing disclosure
of marks and other non confidential information to the
candidates of Delhi J udicial Service Examination, Delhi High
J udicial Service Examination and other examinations
conducted by this Court. Precedents in the form of
information supplied by the Public Information Officer of this
Court pursuant to the directions of the Committee may kindly
be seen at Flag X.

The confidentiality clause in Rule 5 (c) of Delhi High Court
(Right to Information) Rules, 2006 cannot be invoked to
decline disclosure of marks obtained by a candidate in an
examination. On the other hand, a candidate is entitled to
know the marks obtained in an examination.

We are of the opinion that the information sought by the
appellant ought to be supplied to him under intimation to the
Central Information Commission.

While allowing the adjournment in the present case Shri A. S.
Narang, Registrar (Admn), P&H High Court was advised to keep the
above recommendations of the Honble J ustices of the Delhi High Court in
mind when presenting his arguments before us.

The appeal was the heard by videoconference on 17.11.2008. The
following are present:
Appellant
Shri Keshav Kaushik
Respondents at NIC studio, Chandigarh
Shri A. S. Narang, Registrar.
Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate
Shri Rajiv Raina, Advocate.

Learned Counsel for respondents Dr. Balram Gupta submitted his
reply to the appeal notice beginning with preliminary objections as follows:
1. That this Honble Commission has got no jurisdiction
to entertain and try the present appeal, as the subject
matter for which information was sought pertains to
the State of Haryana. Hence the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

2. That a Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 9157 of 2008
filed by the appellant is pending in the Honble High
Court, wherein the Honble Division Bench of this
Court has directed the respondents to keep the record
ready for perusal of the Court and the case is pending
for hearing on 2.12.2008.
5

In his arguments before us learned counsel submitted that the
question concerns the selection of Additional District J udges in the State
of Haryana who are appointed and paid by the State Government. For
this reason, he submitted that this was outside the jurisdiction of C.I.C. It
was, however, admitted that only the High Court of Punjab & Haryana held
the information sought by appellant.

On the second preliminary objection, he submitted that since a Writ
Petition was pending before the Honble Division Bench of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana, scheduled for hearing on 2.12.08 on a similar
subject, a decision of this Commission could amount to a statutory
authority seeking to decide a matter pending decision before a
constitutional authority. The recourse for appellant would be a Writ of
Certiorari before the Honble High Court in order to obtain the information
sought.

Upon this appellant Shri Keshav Kaushik submitted that it is the
Central Information Commission, which exercises jurisdiction in areas
concerning High Courts, which are Constitutional Authorities. Moreover,
he submitted that he had exercised his right under the Right to Information
Act in moving a second appeal under that Act before this Commission.
The Writ Petition before the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana
seeks a different remedy for which he agreed he required information
sought under the Right to Information Act to strengthen his plea before
that Court.

On the merits of this appeal Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Counsel for
respondents submitted that appellant has asked for five answer books.
However, he is not entitled to these u/s 8(1) (e). He also cited the High
Court Rule 4 (c) and decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the
following two cases:
2008 (1) SLR page 397, Para 7: The Courts normally should not
direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ
petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some
6
question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been
done contrary to the norm as fixed by the examining body.

AIR 1984 SC page 1543: In our opinion, the High Court was
perfectly right in taking this view and in holding that the process of
evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks
under d. (3) of Regn. 104 does not attract the principles of natural
justice since, no decision making process which brings about
adverse evil consequence to the examinees is involved. The
principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable
and rational limits and cannot be allowed to participate on the
process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the
correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by
themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books, and
determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of
the answer by the examiners.

Learned counsel Shri Balram Gupta also cited decisions of this
Commission in certain appeals in which in his opinion, this Commission
has held the same view.

On the questions 6 & 7, however, learned Counsel for respondent
admitted that information was admissible and they were ready to supply
the same to appellant. Written arguments of respondents were received
through internet during the hearing, and have been quoted from above. A
copy was handed over to appellant Shri Keshav Kaushik, who in turn
submitted copies of both judicial orders cited by learned counsel for
respondents, i.e. UOI & Ors vs. Vinod Kumar &Ors; AIR 2008 SC 5
and Maharashtra State Board of SHSE and another vs. Paritosh
Bhupesh Kurmar Seth etc; AIR 1984 SC 1543

REASONS & DECISION
To enable us to decide whether we proceed with deciding the merits
of the case, we have first examined the preliminary objections. On the
first preliminary objection it stands conceded by respondents that the
information sought is held only by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
Even though, therefore, the information may concern a matter that is the
responsibility of the State Govt., we are here concerned with the access to
the information by appellant Shri Keshav Kaushik. Sec. 2(j) of the RTI Act
is clear:
7
Sec. 2(j) - "right to information" means the right to
information accessible under this Act which is held by or
under the control of any public authority
1
and includes the
right to
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of
documents or records;
(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 computer or in any other
device;

It is, therefore, the public authority that holds the information, which
is liable to be accessed under the RTI Act, in this case clearly the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana.

On issue No. 2 what has been sought by appellant from this
Commission is an administrative remedy, whereas what he is seeking in
Writ Petition in the High Court is a judicial remedy. It has been the practice
with superior Courts while addressing administrative issues to advise
petitioners to first seek administrative remedy before agitating the matter
before the superior Court. In this case, therefore, the appellant Shri
Kaushik is within his right to seek the remedy sought by him under the
R.T.I. Act so that he may place this before the Honble High Court for its
consideration in disposing of his writ petition. Similarly a writ of certiorari
is a writ seeking administrative remedy. On both preliminary objections,
therefore, we find that the stand taken by the respondents, although most
ably argued, is untenable.

On the merits of the case the following is the decision of the Full Bench in
respect to access of answer sheets in our decisions dated 23.4.2007 in
File No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00223 - Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh and Ors.
vs. Lok Sabha Sectt. and Ors. :-
24. The Right to Information Act was enacted with a view
to conferring a right to access information under the control

1
Underlined by us for emphasis
8
of public authorities on all citizens. The Act recognizes that
an informed citizenry and transparency of information are
pre-requisite to a democracy and these are vital to its
functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold
Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the
governed. The Act was enacted in order to promote
transparency and accountability in the working of the
Government and their instrumentalities.

25. However, the definition of the public authority as
incorporated in the Act widens its ambit and scope even
beyond the preamble when it defines a public authority to
mean and include any authority or body or institution of self
government established or constituted
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(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 also includes.
(i) any body owned, controlled or
substantially financed
(ii) non-Government organizations
substantially financed, directly or
indirectly by the funds provided by
the appropriate governments.

26. Thus, a University and educational institution under
control and substantially financed directly or indirectly by the
government is a public authority under the Right to
Information Act, even though the functioning of an
educational institution or University may not be directly
related to governance as such, the transparency wherein is
the key objective of the Right to Information Act.

27. The Act further recognizes that revelation of
information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other
public interests including efficient operations of the
Government, optimum use of fiscal resources and the
preservation of the confidentiality and accordingly it aims at
harmonizing these conflicting interests while preserving the
paramountcy of the democratic ideals. To secure these
objectives, the Act provides for specified categories of
information which cannot be disclosed and as such these
are exempted under various provisions of the Act, primarily
Sec 8.

28. It is the contention of the appellants that disclosure of
evaluated answer sheets is not exempt under any of the
subsections of Section 8(1). The respondents including the
9
Central Board of Secondary Education have taken the plea
that the evaluated answer sheets are exempted from
disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) as there is a fiduciary
relationship between the University/Board and the examiner
and as such disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets will
result in breach of this relationship. The appellants do not
agree with this contention of the respondents and in support
of their views, they have cited the decision of the Karnataka
Information Commission wherein it has been held that there
is no fiduciary relationship between the examiner and the
University or the Board conducting the examination.

29. This Commission in a number of cases has, however,
held that the fiduciary relationship between the examiner and
the authority conducting examination exists and therefore,
the disclosure of the information is exempt under Section
8(1)(e). In Ms. Treesa Irish Vs. Kerala Postal Circle case
(ICPB/A- 2/COC/2006), it has been observed that when the
answer papers are evaluated, the authority conducting the
examination and the examiners evaluating the answer
sheets stand in a fiduciary relationship between each other.
Such a relationship warrants maintenance of confidentiality
by both of the manner and method of evaluation. That is the
reason why while mark sheets are made available as a
matter of course, copies of the evaluated answer papers are
not made available to the candidates. The aforesaid decision
was cited with approval in another case decided by Mrs.
Padma Balasubramanian in Shri J . Shahabudeen Vs.
Director of Postal Services (ICPB/22/2006). The exemption
under Section 8(1)(j) has also been applied by this
Commission in case of disclosure of evaluated answer
sheets in a complaint case decided on 22.9.2006 in Dr.
(Mrs.) Archana S. Gawada Vs. Employees State Insurance
Corporation and Others (Complaint No.PBA/06/103).
However, a different view was taken in Smt. Bhudevi Vs.
North Central Railway, J hansi where the appellant had some
doubt as to whether the paper examined was actually the
paper which she had submitted, the Commission had
ordered that the complainant be shown the answer sheets
which she had written in the said examination.
(CIC/OK/C/2006/00079 dated 13.12.2006).

30. Presently, the respondents have taken the plea that
disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets is exempted
under Section 8(1)(e) as disclosure of the identity of the
examiner may endanger the life and physical safety of the
examiner and as such the disclosure of the evaluated
answer sheets is exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of the
Right to Information Act. It is submitted on behalf of the
appellants that they have requested for inspection/copies of
the evaluated answer sheets and they are not interested in
knowing the identity of the examiners. It is also contended
10
that if the authority conducting the examination so desires, it
can apply the severability clause enshrined in Section 10 of
the Act and withhold the name of the examiner from being
disclosed. In this context, the appellants also cited the
following observation of the State Information Commission,
West Bengal in Shri Utsab Dutta Vs. SPIO, University of
Calcutta
Here the Commission feels that the words
Information, the disclosure of which would endanger
the life or physical safety of any person is relevant,
though such a possibility of identifying the examiners
and scrutinizers by seeing the signature or
handwriting on a mere inspection of the answer script
is very remote. The Commission further feels that
though such possibility is remote, when the University
takes care not to disclose the identify of the
examinees, it can very well evolve and apply similar
or more full proof method of not disclosing the identity
of the examiners and scrutinizers.

31. The word fiduciary is derived from the Latin fiducia
meaning trust, a person (including a juristic person such as
Government, University or bank) who has the power and
obligation to act for another under circumstances which
require total trust, good faith and honesty. The most
common example of such a relationship is the trustee of a
trust, but fiduciaries can include business advisers,
attorneys, guardians, administrators, directors of a company,
public servants in relation to a Government and senior
managers of a firm/company etc. The fiduciary relationship
can also be one of moral or personal responsibility due to
the superior knowledge and training of the fiduciary as
compared to the one whose affairs the fiduciary is handling.
In short, it is a relationship wherein one person places
complete confidence in another in regard to a particular
transaction or ones general affairs of business. The Blacks
Law Dictionary also describes a fiduciary relationship as
one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person
in the integrity and fidelity of another. The meaning of the
fiduciary relationship may, therefore, include the relationship
between the authority conducting the examination and the
examiner who are acting as its appointees for the purpose of
evaluating the answer sheets. We do not tend to agree with
the decision of the Karnataka Information Commission
wherein it has been held that in a fiduciary relationship such
as between the examiner and the University, there are
obligations only on the part of examiner and that the
authority conducting the examination being not a trustee has
no obligations. Any relationship including a fiduciary
relationship is bound to have mutual rights and obligations.
Thus, in the case before us where there is fiduciary
relationship between the examiner and the authority
11
conducting the examination, the obligations are mutual. This
relationship does not end once the evaluation of the answer
sheets is complete. The concerned authority has to take
care that by disclosing identity of the examiner, there is no
possibility of an eventual harm to the examiner. Thus, even
while disclosing the evaluated answer sheets the authority
conducting the examination is obliged to ensure that the
name and identity of the examiner is not disclosed. The
authorities conducting the examination can, therefore, take
recourse to the exemptions provided for under Section
8(1)(j). But applicability of Section 8(1)(j) per-se will not
exclude disclosure unless the disclosure is also justified
under Section 8(1)(e). The fiduciary relationship between the
examiner and the authority conducting the examination is
personal and it can extend only insofar as the disclosure of
the identity of the examiner is concerned, but it cannot be
stretched beyond that point and as such neither Section
8(1)(e) nor Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of the
evaluated answer sheets if the authority concerned ensures
that the name and identity of the examiners, invigilators,
scrutinizers and any other person involved with the process
is kept confidential.


32. In so far as application of Section 8(1)(j) to deny
disclosure on the ground that personal information which has
no public interest is concerned, it is necessary to explain the
scope and ambit of this sub section. Section 8(1)(j) reads as
under:
information which relates to personal information the
disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the
case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information
.
This Section has to be read as a whole. If that were done, it
would be apparent that that personal information does not
mean information relating to the information seeker, but
about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is stated
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. If one
were to seek information about himself or his own case, the
question of invasion of privacy of his own self does not arise.
If one were to ask information about a third party and if it
were to invade the privacy of the individual, the information
seeker can be denied the information on the ground that
disclosure would invade the privacy of a third party.
Therefore, when a citizen seeks information about his own
case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in
terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section
12
cannot be applied to deny the information. Thus, denial for
inspection/verification of his own answer sheets by a citizen
applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) is not sustainable
33. It has been submitted before us at the time of hearing by
the CBSE that they have above 9000 schools and there are
about 12 lakh examinees each of them appearing in 5
subjects. Thus, there are at least 6 million answer sheets.
The examination being a process where no one may feel
satisfied with the end result, there will be a general demand
of disclosure of the answer sheets and it will give rise to a
situation impossible to manage. He also submitted that if the
disclosure is allowed, it will lead to a situation where no
finality will ever come by. The points raised by the CBSE are
not without merit and they need serious consideration. After
all it is a matter of common knowledge that the parents and
the students are never satisfied with their assessment. Every
University and Board has a mechanism for re-evaluation
which can be made use of by those who have genuine
apprehensions about the fairness of the system. The
disclosure, therefore, of the evaluated answer sheets may
be taken recourse in rare cases but it cannot have an en-
bono application, unless the University or the Board as the
case may be introduces a system where the giving back of
the evaluated answer sheets becomes or is made a regular
practice, which this Commission hereby recommends.

33. Assuming, as contended by the appellants that Section
8(1) (e) cannot be applied in denying the disclosure of the
evaluated answer sheets, we would like to examine the
matter from another angle, keeping in mind the larger public
interest purpose and ambit of RTI Act. The Act is founded on
public interest and that is why, even where there are specific
exemptions in certain matters, the CPIO has been given the
discretion to disclose the same to different authorities if
public interest so warrants.

34. The Supreme Court has examined the issue of public
interest in the matter of allowing candidates to inspect their
answer books or the revaluation of the answer papers in the
presence of the candidates, in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Education Vs. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth &anr.(AIR 1984 SC 1543). In that
case, the Rules framed by the said Board provided No
candidate shall claim or be entitled to revaluation of his
answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or
other 20
documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as
most confidential.

The constitutional validity of the above rule was challenged
as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The
Court held:
13
The principles of natural justice cannot be extended
beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be
carried to such absurd lengths as to make it
necessary that candidates who have taken a public
examination should be allowed to participate in the
process of evaluation of their performances or to
verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the
examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of
the answer books and determining whether there has
been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the
examiners.

The Court, further observing that the constitutional validity of
a rule, among other aspects has to be tested to see whether
it infringes any of the fundamental rights or other restrictions
or limitations imposed by the Constitution, held that the said
rule did not infringe any of the fundamental rights. The Court
further noting, that the procedure evolved by the Board for
ensuring fairness and accuracy in evaluation of the answer
sheets had made the system as fool-proof as can be
possible , observed as follows:

The High Court has relied upon the fact that the
University of Bombay and some other Universities
have recently made provisions permitting candidates
to demand revaluation. In our opinion, this has little
relevance for the purpose of deciding about the legal
validity of the impugned regulations framed by the
Board. We do not know under what circumstances the
University of Bombay has decided to recognize a right
in the examinees to demand a revaluation. As far as
the Board is concerned it has set out in the counter-
affidavit the enormity of the task with which it is
already faced, namely, of completing twice during
each year the process of evaluation and release of
results of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for
the S.S.C. and H.S.C. examinations to be held in an
interval of only a few months from one another. If the
candidates are all to be given inspection of their
answer books or 21 the revaluation of the answer
papers is to be done in the presence of the
candidates, the process is bound to be extremely time
consuming and if such a request is made by even
about ten per cent of the candidates, who will be
30,000 in number, it would involve several thousands
of man hours and is bound to throw the entire system
out of gear. Further, it is in the public interest that the
results of Public examinations when published should
have some finality attached to them. If inspection,
verification in the presence of the candidates and
revaluation are to be allowed as of right, It may lead
to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in
14
regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates,
beside leading to utter confusion on account of the
enormity of the labour and time involved in the
process.

35. Pointing out the Constitution Bench decision in
Fatehchand Himmatlal Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977
SC 1825), that the test of reasonableness is not applied in a
vacuum but in the context of life's realities, the Honble Apex
Court further observed:
If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be
regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be
restricted to examinations conducted by School
Educational Boards alone but would extend even to
all competitive examinations conducted by the Union
and State Public Service Commissions. The resultant
legal position emerging from the High Court Judgment
is that every candidate who has appeared for any
such examination and who is dissatisfied with his
results would, as an inherent part of his right to the
fair play be entitled to demand a disclosure and
personal inspection of his answer scripts and would
have a further right to ask for revaluation of his
answer papers. The inevitable consequence would be
that there will be no certainty at all regarding the
results of the competitive examination for an indefinite
period of time until all such requests have been
complied with and the results of the verification and
revaluation have been brought into account. --------
It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a
pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the
problems of this nature, isolated from the actual
realities and grass root problems involved in the
working of the system and unmindful of the
consequences which would emanate if a purely
idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to
be propounded. It is equally important that the Court
should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or
interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law
which would bring about the 22 result of rendering the
system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that
this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by
the High Court while deciding the instant case.

36. However, it has been argued before us that the aforesaid
decision of the Honble Apex Court is prior to the enactment
of the Right to Information Act under which every information
under the control of a public authority is liable to be
disclosed unless it is exempted from disclosure under any of
the provisions of this Act. As recently as in 2006, that is after
the RTI Act came into effect, the
15
Supreme Court has again affirmed the said decision in the
President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa V
D.Suvankar ( Civil Appeal No 4926 of 2006- J udgment dated
14.11.2006) stating
it is in the public interest that the results of Public
Examinations, when published should have some
finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in
the presence of candidates and revaluation is to be
allowed as a matter of right, it may lead to gross and
indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the
relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides
leading to utter confusion on account of enormity of
the labour and time involved in the process The court
should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academic matters in preference to those
formulated by professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual day to day
working of educational institutions and the
departments controlling them.

37. A reading of the above two judgments of the Honble
Supreme Court will reveal that both judgments are based on
larger public interest, which is also the foundation of RTI Act.
However, in coming to the above conclusions, the Court has
taken into consideration the facts that the rules of the Board
do not provide for inspection of the evaluated answer sheets,
that a large number of candidates are involved, that the
examiners are appointed with care, that there is an inbuilt
system of ensuring fair and correct evaluation with proper
checks and balances

38. There are various types of examinations conducted by public
authorities which could be either public or limited examinations.
Examinations are conducted for various purposes viz. (i) for
admission to educational institutions,

(ii) for selection and appointment to a public office, (iii) for
promotion to higher classes in educational institutions or in
employment etc. There are institutions like UPSC, Staff Selection
Commission, CBSE etc, the main function of which is only to
conduct examinations. Many public authorities, as those in the
present appeals like J al Board, Railways, Lok Saba Secretariat,
DDA, whose main function is not of conducting examinations, do so
either to recruit fresh candidates for jobs or for promotion of existing
staff. Thus these public authorities conduct both public as well as
departmental examinations.

39. In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions
established by the Constitution like UPSC or institutions established
by any enactment by the Parliament or Rules made thereunder like
CBSE, Staff Selection Commission, Universities., etc, the function
16
of which is mainly to conduct examinations and which have an
established system as fool-proof as that can be, and which, by their
own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of evaluated answer
sheets or where the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would
result in rendering the system unworkable in practice and on the
basis of the rationale followed by the Supreme Court in the above
two cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of disclosure of
answer sheets. We therefore decide that in such cases, a
citizen cannot seek disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets
under the RTI Act, 2005.

40. Insofar as examinations conducted by other public
authorities, the main function of which is not of conducting
examinations, but only for filling up of posts either by
promotion or by recruitment, be it limited or public, the
rationale of the judgments of the Supreme Court may not be
applicable in their totality, as in arriving at their conclusions,
the above judgments took into consideration various facts like
the large number of candidates, the method and criteria of
selection of examiners, existence of a fool-proof system with
proper checks and balances etc. Therefore, in respect of these
examinations, the disclosure of the answer sheets shall be the
general rule
2
but each case may have to be examined individually
to see as to whether disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would
render the system unworkable in practice. If that be so, the
disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets could be denied but not
otherwise. However, while doing so the concerned authority should
ensure that the name and identity of the examiner, supervisor or
any other person associated with the process of examination is in
no way disclosed so as to endanger the life or physical safety of
such person. If it is not possible to do so in such cases, the
authority concerned may decline the disclosure of the evaluated
answer sheets u/s 8 (1) (g).

41. In some of the cases before us, it was argued that there is no
question of revealing the identity of an examiner when it is a
computer based examination and OMR sheets are issued as in
such cases, the assessment is done by the computer. Although the
use of this technique is resorted to only where there are large
numbers of examinees appearing, the disclosure of evaluated
answer sheets in such cases is unlikely to render the system
unworkable and as such the evaluated answer sheets in such
cases will be disclosed and made available under the Right to
Information Act unless the providing of such answer sheets would
involve an infringement of copyright as provided for under Section 9
of the Right to Information Act. The same analogy which is
applicable in most examinations will mutatis mutandis apply in
case of an examination conducted with optical marking
system.


2
Emphasis now added for ease of reference
17
XXXX

43. Before us are appeals in relation to examinations conducted by
CBSE, Lok Sabha Secretariat, J al Board, DDA and North Western
Railways. Insofar as CBSE is concerned, we have held that denial
of disclosure has been correctly done. In respect of the other
public authorities, we are of the view that each public authority
conducting examinations shall disclose the evaluated answer
sheets to the applicants subject to the guidelines set forth in
the preceding paragraphs.
3
The other cases are remanded back
to the concerned Information Commissioner for issuing appropriate
directions taking into consideration the broader principles laid down
and indicated in the preceding paragraphs.

In the present case we would categories the examinations
conducted by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at the same level as
those of Lok Sabha Secretariat, J al Board, D.D.A. and Northern-Western
Railways. At any rate even with regard to those examinations which we
have held exempt from such disclosures, we have the decision of the High
Court of Calcutta in which Shri Sanjib Banerjee J of the High Court in Writ
Petition No. 22176 of 2007 (reported in AIR 2000 Calcutta 118.. This
order has been relied upon by appellant Shri Kaushik in his 1
st
appeal, a
plea that was rejected on 16.8.08, by the first appellate authority Shri AS
Narang on the grounds that, PIO is a creature of the Statute and is bound
by the rules. This Authority is also a creature of the Statute and is also
bound by the same We have therefore examined this order by which the
High Court of Calcutta has held as follows:
x x x x

48. And then there is the Central Information Commissions
judgment of April 23, 2004. In addressing a question,
whether answer scripts should be furnished following a
request to obtain information made under the said Act, the
Commission framed two main questions. The first was as to
whether the disclosure of evaluated answer scripts was
exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the said Act, and the
second as to whether such disclosure was exempted under
Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. Section 8(1)(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. Section 8(1)(e) exempts the
disclosure of any information which would endanger the life

3
-ibid-
18
or physical safety of any person or identify the source of
information or assistance given in confidence for law
enforcement or security purposes.

49.In dealing with such questions, the Commission noticed
the argument made on behalf of the public authorities before
it that an examining body is obliged to not disclose the
identity of the examiners as such disclosure would be in
breach of the fiduciary duty said to be owed by the
examining body to the examiners. The connected argument
was also noticed, that upon the identity of the examiners
being revealed their lives and physical safety may be at risk.
It is not necessary to go into the reasons as to why the
Commission found that neither Section 8(1)(e) nor Section
8(1)(g) exempted disclosure of the evaluated answer scripts
as the Commission held that only the disclosure as to the
identity of the examiners was exempted. It is the argument
as to the unworkability of the right to inspect answer scripts
that ultimately weighed with the Commission. In the words
of the Commission.

it is matter of common knowledge that the parents
and the students are never satisfied with their
assessment. Every University and Board has a
mechanism for re-evaluation which can be made use
of by those who have genuine apprehensions about
the fairness of the system. The disclosure, therefore,
of the evaluated answer sheets may be taken
recourse in rare cases but it cannot have an en-bono
application, unless the University or the Board as the
case may be introduces a system where the giving
back of the evaluated answer sheets becomes or is
made a regular practice, which this Commission
hereby recommends.

50. The Commission thereafter noticed the Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth case, a Constitution Bench judgment
in Fateh Chand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra reported
as (1977) 2 SCC 670: (AIR 1977 SC 1825) and the
Suvankar case to conclude that the Supreme Court
pronouncements negating an examinees right to demand
disclosure and personal inspection of his answer script, were
based on larger public interest which the Commission also
found to be the basis of the said Act. The Commission
thereafter proceeded to make a distinction between public
examinations conducted by institutions established by the
Constitution or by any enactment like the Union Public
Service Commission or Universities or the Central Board of
Secondary Education and examinations conducted by other
public authorities whose principal function is not of
conducting examinations but who hold examinations for
filling up posts either by promotion or by recruitment. The
19
commission held that for public authorities designed to
conduct examinations, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of
the evaluated answer script under the said Act. But for other
public authorities incidentally conducting examinations, the
disclosure of the answer sheets shall be the general rule but
each case may have to be examined individually to see as to
whether disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would render
the system unworkable in practice. The Commission added
a rider to the case of public authorities incidentally
conducting examinations : the identity of the examiner,
supervisor or other person associated with the process of
examination should not be disclosed so as to endanger their
lives or physical safety, and if it was not possible to make
over the information without concealing the identities of the
connected persons, the public authority could decline the
disclosure of the evaluated answer scripts under Section
8(1)(g) of the said Act. In case of departmental examinees,
the Commission took a view that disclosure of proceedings
and disclosure of answer scripts, not only of the examinees
but also of the other candidates, was necessary to bring in
fairness and neutrality for the system to be more transparent
and accountable.

51.In effect, the Commission discovered an exemption not
expressly provided for in the statute to deny information
despite accepting that the words used in the said Act could
not be read to be a bar to the right asserted thereunder, But
more on the Commissions opinion later.

52. In its long title the said Act proclaims to set about a
personal regime of right to information for citizens. 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 the
legislature was mindful of the likely conflict between
revelation of information and efficient operation of the
Governments: of optimum use of resources: and, most
significantly, the need to preserve the paramount virtue of
the democratic ideal:

Whereas the Constitution of India has established
Democratic Republic;

And whereas democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption
and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the government;

And whereas revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests
including efficient operations of the Governments,
20
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information:

And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy
of the democratic ideal:

Now, therefore, it is expedient to provide for furnishing
certain information to citizens who desire to have it.

53. If it is the preamble that has to be looked into for the
reason for, or the spirit of, the statute as a key to open the
minds of the makers of the Act and the mischief they
intended to redress, the makers appear to have been alive to
the likely difficulties of the executive to live up to the Act.

x x x

66. Right to information jure gentium has to be understood
on the commissions opinion that is the evidence of what the
law is, on the basis of how courts have interpreted the right
under Article 19 of the Constitution. As the said Act is of rent
vintage, the principle of contemporane exposition is not
available for the opinion of the Central Information
Commission, to the extent of its understanding that there is
no express bar in the said Act to answer scripts being
otherwise made available, to be relied upon. Yet such
Commission is a body that deals with matters under the said
Act and reads the words of the statute on a regular basis to
direct or refuse the disclosure of information. The
Commission answered the two questions directly raised on
the provisions of the said Act against the public authorities
and yet found the hardship factor call it inconvenience or
unworkability which is not expressly included in the statue as
a ground for exemption to be standing in the way of the
answer scripts being made available to their authors. But
though the examinees failed before the Central Information
Commission there is a pious wish recorded in the order for
their benefit recommending making over of answer scripts to
examinees upon a regular procedure being set down in that
regard.

67. On a plain reading of the right amplified under the
aid Act the question that it ought to stimulate upon a
request being received is not why, but why not. If
information has to be supplied unless it is exempted the
reason for refusal has to be found in Section 8 or not at
all.
4


4
Emphasis ours
21
68. Since three of the ten clauses of Section 8 (1) of the
said Act have already been referred to the other seven may
be seen. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 deals
with information that would compromise the sovereignty or
integrity of the country and like matter; clause (c ) covers
such matters which would cause a breach of privilege of the
Parliament or the State Legislatures; clause (d) protects
information of commercial nature and trade secrets and their
ilk; clause (f) prevents information being disseminated if it is
received in confidence from any foreign government; clause
(h) bars access to such information which would impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders; 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. The proviso at the foot of clause
(j) appears to cover the entirety of section 8 (1)
notwithstanding the view taken by the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court. The manner in which the exceptions to
the rule have been carved out in section 8 and the proviso
which appears to govern all the cases covered by Section 8
(1) of the said Act makes the exemption section exhaustive.

69. Construction of a statue on the grounds of hardship or
inconvenience or in justice or absurdity or anomaly arises if
the statute presents a choice. The said Act does not appear
to present one. For the rule of mischief to come into play
there have to be material words that are capable of bearing
two or more constructions. The rule of purposive
construction or the mischief rule as enunciated in the
Heydon case has been accepted by the Supreme Court in
the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
reported at 1955 (2) SCR 603; (AIR 1955 SC 661)
23 It is a sound rule of construction of a statue firmly
established in England as for back as 1584 when Heydons
case (3 Co. rep 7a; 76Er 637) was decided that
for the sure and true interpretation of all statues
in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or
enlarging of the common law) four things are to be
discerned and considered:
1
st
What was the common law before the making of
the Act,
2
nd
What was the mischief and defect for which the
common law did not provide.
3
rd
What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and
appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth.,
and
4
th
The true reason of the remedy; and then the office
of all the J udges is always to make such construction
as shall suppress the mischief and advance the
remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and
22
evasions for continuance of the mischief and
proprivato commodo, and to add force and life to the
cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the
makers of the Act pro bona publico.

70. Even if the Heydon questions were to arise in the
present case the answers to them would not permit the
disclosure of answer scripts being resisted. There is no
discernible change of law attempted by the said Act. It has
fuelled the burgeoning aspiration of a people for transparent
governance. If there is any mischief that the said Act seeks
to address. It is to make the right guaranteed by the
Constitution more explicit. The remedy that the Parliament
has prescribed is to cure the malaise of clandestine, cloak
and dagger functioning of any public authority. The true
reason of the remedy is to ensure a level playing field.

71. If then there is hardship in its implementation or in the
fructification of the aspirations recognized therein it is not for
the Court to rein in the desirable curiosity that the Act has
unleashed but for other measures to be adopted to pave the
way for its operation. If the Central Information Commission
could have recognized the spirit of the Act to have
recommended the return of answer scripts to examinees,
that there is an immediate hardship or harsh consequence is
of no relevance.

72. The Act provides a right to receive information and
the consequence of the making over of such information is
immaterial in the matter of construction of its provisions. As
to whether an examinee would use the information received
on inspection of his answer script to undo the finality of the
process of examination is not an argument that can be
considered to curb the operation of the state. The Act
begins with a citizens right to obtain information and ends
with the information being made available to him or his
request being justly rejected on the grounds recognized by
the Act what happens before and what may be the
consequence of the information being made available or
rightfully denied is a matter beyond the operation of the Act.

73. The Universitys first challenge (and it is, indeed the
Universitys challenge as the onus is on the rejection being
required to be justified) that what an examinee seeks in
asking for inspection of his answer script is not information at
all cannot be accepted. In the stricter sense if such answer
script answers to the description of information. Whether
such information is of the examinees creation counts for
little. In the broader perspective, if a document submitted
takes on any marking it becomes a new document. The
Universitys offer of making the marks allotted to each
individual question available to all candidates is fair and
23
laudable but not if it comes with the rider that the answer
scripts should then be exempted from being divulged.
Notwithstanding the principle of severability contained in
Section 10 of the said Act the answered paper with or
without an examiners etchings thereon is not information
exempted under any of the limbs of Section 8.

74. As a matter of principle, if answer scripts cannot be
opened up for inspection it should hold good for all or even
most cases. Since the said Act permits a request for third
party information, subject to the consideration as to
desirability in every case, a third party answer script may,
theoretically be sought and obtained. The Universitys first
argument would then not hold good for a third party answer
script would be information beyond the knowledge of its
seeker.

75. There is an understandable attempt on the
Universitys part to not so much as protect the self and
property of the examiner, but to keep the examiners identity
concealed. The argument made on behalf of the public
authorities before the Central Information Commission has,
thankfully, not been put forward in this case. This University
has not cited the fiduciary duty that it may owe to its
examiners or the need to keep answer scripts out of bounds
for examinees so that the examiners are not threatened. A
ground founded on apprehended lawlessness may not
stultify the natural operation of a statue, but in the
Universitys eagerness here to no divulge the identity of its
examiners there is a desirable and worthy motive- to ensure
impartiality in the process. But a procedure may be evolved
such that the identity of the examiner is not apparent on the
face of the evaluated answer script. The severability could
be applied by the coversheet that is left blank by an
examinee or later attached by the University to be detached
from the answer script made over to the examinee following
a request under section 6 of the Act. It will require an effort
on the public authoritys part and for a system to be put in
place but the lack of effort or the failure in any workable
system being devised will not tell upon the impact of the
wide words of the Act or its ubiquitous operation.

76. Whether or not an examiner puts his pen to the
answer script that he proceeds to evaluate would not rob the
answer script of retaining its virtue as information within the
meaning of the said Act even if it is made available for
inspection in the same form as it was received from the
examinee. The etchings on an answer script may be
additional information for a seeker but the answer script all
along remains a document liable to be sought and obtained
following a request under section 6 of the Act. That the
etchings may be pointless or that they may be arbitrary or
24
whimsical in the absence of any guidelines, makes little
difference.

77. Education is more than just reading prescribed texts
and taking examinations in a given format, it is more than a
garnering of degrees, certificates and diplomas. Any real
education requires the amassing of knowledge that may or
may not be in the prescription for an examination. An
educated human being may also strive to create a new body
of knowledge that is outside the purview of prescriptions.
There can be no education if limits are imposed on the
amount and type of knowledge an individual may gather or
create. A democracy can only be functional in all its aspects
extents and senses when there is an informed citizenry.

78. The right to information is the most basic
empowerment of the individual- the right of an individual to
the source of any knowledge required for him to educate him
self in any are he may choose.

79. An examining authority may not tell a student that he
must learn how to answer questions in the format the
examining authority desires, yet leave the examinee
uninformed of the manner of evaluation. The examining
authority cannot be exacting in its demand for transparency
and clarity in answers to its questions, and yet remain in
scriptable and veiled in its methods of evaluation. An
examining authority has every right to judge the students
knowledge and expression of that knowledge, but it cannot
take away the examinees right to know the methodology of
and the criteria for its evaluation. But again this is straying
into the zone of the consequence of information of the
subject kind being made available.

XXXX

81. If inspection of answer scripts is denied to the
examinee, the spirit of the Constitutional right to
expression and information may be lost
5
. The knowledge
builders the Universitys bid to perpetuate the draconian,
elitist, one sided right to know and judge and rule without
being open to question or accountable to the examinee
cannot be encouraged. For a system to foster meaningful
proliferation of knowledge it must itself be crystal clear to this
core.

82. In the Universitys zeal to limit the scope of the request
for information under the said At, one may get a whiff of its
inertia; its innate resistance to change, almost a sublime
refusal to perceive or acknowledge how all around it has

5
Emphasis added
25
moved along. History and tradition may be cherished and
preserved. But evolution cannot be impeded as it is a
means for survival. If there is no infrastructure to receive the
change, the need to change cannot be negated, it is possible
that public authorities as the university do not desire
accountability as it is a demanding taskmaster and it is
difficult to shrug off old habits. It is equally likely that while
public examining bodies make an ostensible show of
concern for the examiners, there is a realization that a more
open scrutiny of evaluated answer script will require more
care and caution than the low remuneration- and that is a
notorious fact- to examiners can command.

83. Access to answer scripts may have the desirable side
effect of ensuring that there is no loss of any of the papers.
It is not unknown for answer scripts of Board and other
examinations to have been found in dishonourable places
that they should never have reached, and the awareness,
that there may potentially be a request for furnishing every
answer script may result in its better preservation. In a
sense, he despair that has driver many a student to take his
life in recent times may be addressed if students have
access to their evaluated answer scripts.

84. The Universitys final shield is, formally, the Court. It
seeks to tuck the answer scripts behind the apparently
insurmountable wall of Supreme Court judgments. Apart
from the fact that Section 8 (1) (b) of the said Act has to be
read in the light of the overriding effect of the said Act
sanctioned under Section 22, the argument on such score is
as much a show of desperation as the floodgate theory.

85. There are two parts to Section 8(1) (b) of the Act:
information that has been expressly forbidden to be
published by any Court of Law or Tribunal or the disclosure
of which may constitute contempt of Court. It is a disjunctive
or after the word tribunal. It is trite that an act may not be
expressly forbidden by a Court and yet its commission would
amount to contempt of Court. In the first limb of the clause,
the expression expressly forbidden operates on the word
information. It necessarily implies that, that which is sought
by way of a request has to be a matter that is expressly
forbidden to be made available. The judicial embargo has to
be explicit and a general observation may not be cited as a
bar. An express prohibition has to be more specific than
what the University brings by way of Supreme Court
judgments, even if its best arguable case is taken. It does
not appear that the University here has stressed much on
the second arm of the clause. Even the latest Ayan Das
case has not altogether forbidden answer scripts being
offered for inspection by a Court to an examinee. The
Suvankar case spoke of the ills of court sanction
26
interventions in the process of evaluation that may rob it of
its timely finality. The Suvankar case deals with the
consequence of information being furnished and cannot be
seen as an impediment to the information in the form of
answer scripts being made available. It is a matter that
comes into play, as noticed above, in the zone beyond
where the said Act operates.

86. The Supreme Courts reference in the Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth case to the audi alteram partelm rule
not operating in the twilight zone of expectations has to be
read in the background of the immediate lis and the more
general rule that was laid down. The challenge in that case
was to two clauses of one of the regulations of the
Secondary and Higher Secondary Council that barred
reassessment and prohibited inspection of answ4erscripts.
The restrictions were found to be reasonable. The matter
was not considered in the light of the enactment which is the
subject matter of the present proceedings, even if it is
accepted that the said Act only elucidates on the right
originally guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no evil in
a right born in the Constitution being enlarged by
subsequent legislation nor any doubt as to the legislative
competence to do so. If the right already existed under the
Constitution, Parliament may widen its sweep and operation.
A privilege granted under Part III of the Constitution can be
legitimately magnified in keeping with the Constitutional
vision in Part IV, abreast with the changing times when the
said Acts avowed purpose is to bring about transparency
and curb corruption.

87. J udicial discipline demands deference to precedents
not only of the hierarchical superior but also of a forum of
coordinate jurisdiction but it does not command a fawning
obeisance in the deification of any precedent. As society
progresses and aspirations rise, it shakes off the shackles
that it invented in its infancy or adolescence. Marvels of
yesterday become relics of today. If the Central
Information Commission can rightfully aspire for a day
when answer scripts would accompany the mark sheets,
that there is no facility therefore today would not lead to
the natural words and import of the said Act to be
constricted by any concern for the immediate hardship
and inconvenience. The umbra of exemptions must be
kept confined to the specific provisions in that regard
and no penumbra of a further body of exceptions may
be conjured up by any strained devise of construction.
In a constitutional democracy, every limb and digit of
governance is ultimately answerable to the
government.
6


6
Emphasis added
27

We had already in our interim order of 7.11.08 conveyed the decision
of the High Court of Delhi in reviewing the application of rule 5 (c) of the
Delhi High Court Right to Information Rules 2006.the Decision of the High
Court of Calcutta read together with the instructions of the High Court of
Delhi and the Decision in Full Bench of this Commission, leads to the
inevitable conclusion that in this case, the answer scripts are disclosable
to the author. The Registrar High Court of Punjab & Haryana is now
directed to provide the information sought to appellant Shri Keshav
Kaushik within ten working days of the date of issue of this decision
notice including questions 6 & 7 already agreed to. It is also
recommended to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana u/s 19(8) (a) that
they may consider a similar review as that undertaken by the High Court
of Delhi of its rule 5, of rule 4 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
(Right to Information) Rules, 2007

The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no costs.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision was announced in open
chamber on 21.11.2008. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the
parties.



(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
21.11.2008

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act,
to the CPIO of this Commission.



(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
J oint Registrar
21.11.2008
28