Seeking Certified Copies and Documents from the Court: The Concern over Transparency of the Judiciary

Alok Aanand

Seeking Certified Copies and Documents from the Court: The Concern over Transparency of the Judiciary 

"Under the guise of seeking information under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to be abused and information not to be misused." 

Recently a bench of the Supreme Court judges ruled that the court documents such as copies of the judgments and pleadings can now be obtained by third-parties or by those who are not a party to a case only after the court rules permit it and not under the RTI Act, 2005.

The bench comprising Justices Banumathi, A S Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy, in the case of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another [Civil Appeal No. 1966-1967 of 2020 arising out of SLP. (C) No. 5840 of 2015] held that the copies of court documents or information on the judicial side can only be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules and the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 shall not be resorted to. 

HIGHLIGHTS: 

1. Rule 151 of Gujarat High Court Rules provides that anyone who seeks to obtain any certified copies of the documents or any information from the court needs to file an affidavit stating the reasons for such seeking. The issue before the court was whether this provision was inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and especially with Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005. 

2. Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 states that the RTI Act shall override any other law to the extent it is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. A clause of this kind is called a non-obstante clause. The notwithstanding clause or the non-obstante clause in a statute makes the provision independent of other provisions contained in the law, even if the other provisions provide to the contrary. 

The purpose of a non-obstante clause was well explained in K.Parasuramaiah vs. Pokurl Lakshmamma; (AIR 1965 AP 220) as: “A non obstante clause is usually used in a provision to indicate that the provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in the provision mentioned in such non-obstante clause. In case there is any inconsistency or a departure between the non-obstante clause and another provision, one of the objects of such a clause is to indicate that it is the non-obstante clause which would prevail over the other clause”. 

3. The Supreme Court held that there is no inconsistency between the RTI Act and the Court Rules as the Gujarat High Court Rules requires one to state the reasons for seeking such copies, through an affidavit whereas the RTI Act requires no reasons to be provided in order to obtain or seek any information or documents. 

The bench held that "Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely lays down a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply”. 

4. The bench further argued that “A special enactment or rule cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment simply because the latter opens up with a non-obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations”.

5. Rule 151 of Gujarat High Court Rules was being upheld, which allows access to certified copies of judgments, orders, and pleadings to a third party or those not party to a case, only under the order of an officer of the court. 

6. The bench also agreed with the Delhi High Court view in the Registrar Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra (2017) 244 DLT 179, wherein it held that "once any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to.". This view was later followed by Karnataka High Court. The bench observed: "We fully endorse above views of the Delhi High Court. When the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing an application/affidavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted."

7. The bench held that the High Courts hold the information as a trustee for the litigants in order to adjudicate upon the matter and administer justice. Third parties shall not be permitted to have open and easy access to such personal information of the litigants or information given by the government in the proceedings because there would be a misuse of the court process and the information to an unmanageable level. 

Effect of the Order: 

1. According to the rules, litigants are entitled to receive copies of documents/judgments etc on filing of an application with the prescribed court fees.

2. Third parties shall not be given copies of the judgments and other documents without the assistant registrar’s order. Thus, the assistant registrar, who is the officer of the particular court, has the ultimate power in this regard. 

3. The registrar, on being satisfied about the reasonable cause for seeking the information/certified copies of the documents, may allow access to such information or documents. 

Drawbacks of the order: 

1. Most of the High Courts allow only the parties to a legal proceeding the access to the records of a case. Some High Courts may allow third parties to access such records or documents only after being satisfied with the reason for access to such documents. On the other hand seeking any information under RTI is void of stating the reason for such access. Thus, there exists the obstacle of administrative discretion under the said rule.

2. The other concern over the judgement is that the procedure under the RTI Act is quiet expeditious and simple. A person can file an application under RTI through post and the required fee can also be deposited through a postal order. On the other hand the procedure laid down by the High Courts is cumbersome and time consuming. 

3. Today when different branches of the government is striving hard to make its functioning more transparent and consumer/citizen friendly, judiciary is lagging behind and needs a systematic overhauling of the entire process in order to establish a supreme model of transparent system.