Complaints against Supreme Court and variopus High Courts for Sec 4 disclosure and the RTI Rules violating the basic RTI Act

[karira]

As reported by Aneesha Sareen in indianexpress.com on 11 March 2010:
RTI fee: District courts follow two rules

RTI fee: District courts follow two rules

Utter confusion prevails in the district courts over the fee charged for applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The Public Information Officer (PIO) designated with the court of District and Sessions Judge charges Rs 10 per RTI application.

But the PIO designated with the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate charges Rs 50 per application despite a notification by the Chandigarh Administration last year, which reduced the rate to Rs 10 per RTI query.

The anomalies came to light following a few RTI applications filed by Newsline in the district courts.

An application seeking information about a particular case was accepted by the PIO of the Court of District Sessions Judge with Rs 10 as the fee.

But another application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed, as the fee of Rs 10 was “not acceptable”.

“As per the Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Court Rules, 2007, the applicant is required to affix the adhesive court fee of Rs 50 and then seek the information as desired,” the reply reads.

In May last year, the Administration had reduced the enhanced fee of Rs 50 to Rs 10. This was done after RTI activist Hemant Goswami had protested and filed a civil writ petition in the High Court against the hike.

Subsequently, on May 21, the Administration had informed the High Court that they had decided to reduce the fee according to the Central Government rules. An amended notification was sent to all the departments concerned, including the district courts.

But the district courts continued to charge Rs 50 per RTI query on the pretext that they had not received a High Court notification, amending its 2007 order, which enhanced the fee.

“We ourselves are confused over the fee,” a court official said. “We did receive the notification of the Administration to charge Rs 10 but notification from the High Court to amend their order of 2007 has not been received.”

Goswami said: “The rules they are following are illegal and a blatant misuse of power. The order by the High Court to impose Rs 50 is not meant for subordinate courts.”

Fee can be paid only through court stamp

Further, an RTI applicant is asked to pay the fee only through court stamp. According to the RTI Act, the fee can be paid through postal order, cash or demand draft. Also, the choice of the mode of payment rests with the applicant.

“Any person intending to obtain information from any Public Information Officer (PIO) is required to pay the prescribed application fee by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker’s cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of that public authority,” the RTI Act reads.

But in absence of a designated authority to collect the fee, the applicants can only pay the fee through the court stamp — all PIOs in district courts ask applicants to buy court stamps.

============

Posters Note:

The confusion is because under Sec 27 and 28 of the RTI Act, the "competent authority" can make rules to carry forward the Act and prescribe fees. Various Chief Justices of the High Courts have framed RTI Rules and Fees for the subordinate courts also - although as per definition in Sec 2(e), the Chief Justice is the competent authority only for the High Court.

This forms a part of my above mentioned Complaints under Sec 18 made to the CIC.

[karira]

Sponsorer

Attaching some more Complaints recently filed concerning:

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Rajasthan High Court.

[Sunil_Gupta]

Mr. Karira,

I would like to know what was the fate of these complaints made against respective Courts. Did the Court amend its rules, wrongly framed by them.

Like in the present writ petition, the High Court has challenged the jurisdiction & authority of UIC, to declare the rules framed by HC as illegal or ultra vires.

Can a complaint be made in this respect to the Information Commission.

Regards.

[Ketan Modi]

Karira Sir,

This is just the greatest effort on behalf of the RTI community. We all are indebted to you for ever.

[karira]

Mr. Karira,

I would like to know what was the fate of these complaints made against respective Courts. Did the Court amend its rules, wrongly framed by them.

Like in the present writ petition, the High Court has challenged the jurisdiction & authority of UIC, to declare the rules framed by HC as illegal or ultra vires.

Can a complaint be made in this respect to the Information Commission.

Regards.

The Complaints have been made directly to the CIC under Sec 18.

As per the status on the CIC website, they are in the "scrutiny" stage.

I still have to do 4 more Complaints - 2 each against Sikkim High Court and 2 against Uttarakhand High Court.

Actually, all the High Courts have some Rule or the other which violates the fundamental principles of the RTI Act. However, for this purpose, I have only complained against those HC's which have major violations.

By now you would have understood that it is only the CIC which has jurisdiction over the various High Courts - not the respective SIC's. In your case, SIC should not have heard the matter in the first place. However, since the SIc order is in your favour, do not raise this issue at this stage.

This is just the greatest effort on behalf of the RTI community. We all are indebted to you for ever.

Thanks for your appreciation.