The Information Commission ruled that advocates cannot invoke the RTI Act to seek information for cases they represent, citing court guidance. The decision came while dismissing an advocate’s appeal over termination of a supply contract at a Navodaya Vidyalaya.
NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that advocates cannot file applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to obtain details about cases they are handling for their clients. This decision references a judgment from the Madras High Court that highlighted how such use of the law undermines its primary objectives.
The ruling arose from a case where Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi rejected a second appeal made by an advocate concerning the termination of a fruits and vegetables supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Defers RTI Petitions Targeting Political Party Transparency
Relangi stated,
“The appellant being an advocate by profession has sought the information on behalf of his brother who used to be a supplier of vegetables/fruits to the respondent public authority. In the absence of any fact stated by the appellant as to why is he seeking details on behalf of his brother who can personally ask for information as a citizen, it appears that the appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se which is not permissible in view of the judgment passed by the Madras HC (Madurai bench).”
She referred to the relevant excerpts from the High Court judgment.
She noted that,
“the first respondent dismissed the appeal on the premise that the petitioner being a practising advocate cannot seek information relating to cases instituted by him on behalf of his client. As a citizen, he can personally ask for information, but not as an advocate on behalf of his client.”
ALSO READ: Judicial Officers’ Complaints Are Private: Chhattisgarh High Court Bars RTI Disclosure
It stated.
“The reasoning given by the first respondent cannot be faulted at all. The second appeal filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected, as otherwise, every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for getting information on behalf of his client, which situation does not advance the objects of the scheme of the RTI Act. The laudable objects of the RTI,”
The court emphasized,
“the Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practice.”
Relying on a Madras High Court decision, the CIC reiterated that
“a practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client.”
The High Court had warned that permitting such requests would mean that,
“every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for getting information on behalf of his client”, a practice that “does not advance the objects of the scheme of the RTI Act”.
ALSO READ: Congress Accuses Modi Government of Weakening RTI Act with New Data Protection Law
Quoting further from the judgment, the Commission emphasised that ,
“laudable objectives of the RTI Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practice”.
Addressing the stand of the public authority, which stated that certain records had been destroyed in a fire and that personal details were correctly withheld under statutory exemptions, the CIC observed that it found “no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO”.
Relangi maintained this position in another case involving the Inland Waterways Authority of India, where a lawyer filed RTI applications and subsequent appeals on behalf of a client, asserting that a satisfactory response was not provided. Both the January 12 and January 14 orders, which resolved the cases, were issued by her referencing the High Court’s judgment.
The appeal was therefore disposed of, with a direction that copies of the written submissions be supplied to the appellant.