Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No. CIC/WB/C/20 10/000 131-SM


Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)

Date of hearing

4 January 2012

Date of decision'

4 January 2012

Name of the Complainant .

Name of the Public Authority

Shri Sunil Kishore Ahya


B/3302, Oberoi Woods, Mohan Gokhale
Road, Near Aarey Colony, Goregaon (E),
Mumbai - 400 063.
CPIO, Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

The Appellant was present.


No one was present on behalf of the Respondent.

Chief Information .commissioner

2.

Shri Satyananda Mishra

The Complainant was present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC. The

Respondent did not turn up in the Jodhpur studio in spite of notice. We


heard the submissions of the Appellant.
3.

The Complainant had wanted to know about the reasons for the

Rajasthan High Court framing certain rules under Rajasthan Right to


Information (High Court and Su ordinate Courts) Rules, 2006(Rajasthan RTI
Rules) which were contrary to certain provisions of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. He received no response from the CPIO and , hence, has come
before the CIC in this complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act.
4.

During the hearing, he submitted that a number of rules made by the

Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of the powers


conferred by sljbsection(1) of Section 28 of- the Right to Information (RTI)
Act were not in conformity wi t h the provisions of that Act. He submitted

CIC/WB/C/2010/000131 -SM

that he should be provided with the relevant documents from the High Court
which would show the basis of framing of such rules. He has listed a number
of rules in this regard , namely, Rule 4(1 ), the requirement of furnishing a
self attested photograph i n the prescribed application form, Rule 5(1) and
Rule 10(1) & (2) which, in his opinion, are c<mtrary, to the provisions of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act.
5.

We examined t he contents of the RTI -application very carefully. We

also perused t he relevant rules from the Rajasthan RTI Rules, 2006. We find
a lot of merit in the arguments of the Complainant. All the rules he has
cited in his RTI application are not i n conf ormi ty with t he provisions of t he
.
'
Right t o Information (RTI) Act. For example, Section 6(2) of the Right t o
Information (RTI) Act very clearly states that "an applicant making request
for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the
information or any other person al details except t hose t hat may be
necessary for contacting him". This clearly implies that the applicant wHl
not be asked to give any more details about himself than his contact address .
whereas the application form prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan RTI

..

Rules mandates the applicant t o affix a self attested photograph. Similarly,


the Rule 10(2) requires the applicant to make several declarations in the
application itself quite contrary to the provisions contained in Section 6(2)
.

of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Section 28 of the Right to Information


(RTI) Act vests the power to make rules in the competent authority in order
to carry out the provisions of this Act; it does not give any power to the
competent authority to frame rules to restrict the rights conferred by the
Act. All the rules cited by the Complainant clearly impose restrictions on the
rights of the citizens not envisaged in the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
6.

In the light of the above , we think that there is scope for the

Rajasthan High Court to revisi t these rules and to bring those in conformity
with the express provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. We direct

the CPIO to bring this to the

otice of the competent authority for further

necessary action. We also direct him to proviae to the Complainant within


10 working days of receiving this prder the photocopy of the relevant file

CIC/WB/C/2010/000131-SM

(f(;:~,:-~
'~Q\

U
'::>:/

.,..
\

-~

i I .~
,'f,: ~ k
( l ~, t, \ '

:::l

'\~ ~~~:~:<i;~~
,,~~.-~!:~~-:(~ ~''

notings from the file in which t he Rajasthan Right to Information (High Court
and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 had been processed for notification
with a view to showing to the Complainant the rationale and the basis for
framing of all or some of these rules.

,
7.

The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

8.

Copies or this order be given free of cost to the parties.

)0\~
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
~

(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar

CIC/WB/C/2010/000131-SM

S-ar putea să vă placă și