WWW.LIVELAW.IN Sunshine in the Courts Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act

Supported by WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Acknowledgements About The Authors This Report is an independent, non-commissioned piece Vaidehi Misra, Chitrakshi Jain, Tarika Jain and Shreya Tripathy of academic work. The authors would like to thank Tata are Research Fellows at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy Trusts for their support. The funding for the report is part of working in the Judicial Reforms Initiative. Prashant Reddy T. “Vidhi-Tata Trusts Fellowship,” under which fellows undertake is a Senior Resident Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy research under the Justice, Access, and Lowering Delays and leads the Judicial Reforms Initiative. All the fellows who in (JALDI) project. This multi-year initiative aims to worked on this report are Vidhi-Tata Trusts Fellows. advocate for and implement evidence-based reforms to eliminate existing backlog in courts, and ensure that cases are The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy is an independent think- disposed within reasonable timelines. tank doing legal research to make better laws and improve governance for the public good. The authors would like to thank Mr. Shailesh Gandhi, former Information Commissioner the Central Information This report has been designed by Kunal Agnihotri. Commission, for reviewing this report and providing his valuable comments. Reshma Sekhar, Research Fellow at For more information, see www.vidhilegalpolicy.in Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, is also thanked for her inputs on the report. The authors are also grateful to Divya Dhavan, Contact us at [email protected] Jyoti Shankar Nayak, Megha Katheria, Pallavi Khatri, Saachi Agrawal and Vaidik Bajpai who as interns provided assistance October 2019 for this report.

The authors would also like to thank the Public Information Officers of the High Courts, who over the course of time, have responded to our applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The errors, if any, rest with the authors. WWW.LIVELAW.IN Sunshine in the Courts Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act

Vaidehi Misra Prashant Reddy T. Chitrakshi Jain Tarika Jain Shreya Tripathy

October 2019

Supported by WWW.LIVELAW.IN WWW.LIVELAW.IN Contents

Volume I: National Report 1

Introduction and findings of four indices created to evaluate the compliance of the High Courts with the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Volume II: Reports for Individual High Courts 63

A compendium of the State Assessment Reports WWW.LIVELAW.IN WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Volume I

National Report WWW.LIVELAW.IN WWW.LIVELAW.IN Contents of Volume I

Executive Summary...... 1

I. Introduction...... 4

II. The RTI Rules – The Legality & Convenience Index...... 7

A. The Legality Index: Were the RTI Rules of the High Court in line with the Requirements of the RTI Act?...... 7

B. The Convenience Index - Did the RTI Rules of the High Court Provide Convenient Procedures for the Citizens? . . . 18

III. The Practice Index – How did the Public Information Officers respond to RTI Applications?. . . . .24

IV. Proactive Disclosure of Information under Section 4 of the RTI Act by the High Courts...... 30

V. Proactive Disclosure of Information under Section 4 of the RTI Act by the District Courts ...... 41

VI. The Submission of Annual Reports by the High Courts to the Information Commission ...... 46

VII. Conclusion...... 48

Annexure A ...... 53

Annexure B...... 55

Annexure C...... 58

Annexure D...... 59

Annexure E...... 60 WWW.LIVELAW.IN WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Executive Summary

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 which guarantees all Figure A: Legality Index Indian citizens a right to access information held by the state, was the first ever ‘sunshine law’ enacted by the Parliament. Like Scores Ranks most ‘sunshine laws’, the RTI Act provided a right to all citizens -10 1 Madras to demand information from any public authority in India, -15 2 while also creating a positive obligation upon these authorities -20 -20 to proactively publish information about their functioning. 3 -20 & High Courts, as constitutional bodies are also covered under -30 the ambit of this Act. 6 -30 -40 Calcutta This report aims to measure the degree to which the High -40 8 Courts are in compliance with the RTI Act. We specifically -40 chose to study the High Courts because they are the most -40 important judicial institutions with regard to administration of -50 Bombay justice at the state level. The High Courts are responsible for -50 12 planning and management of the entire District Judiciary. This -50 includes recruitment of judges and court staff, preparation of -55 budgetary estimates and infrastructure planning. Given the -55 15 Orissa -55 importance of the High Courts in ensuring efficient judicial -60 administration for the District Judiciary, it is important that 18 -60 they be transparent in their workings. -65 20 -80 21 In this report, we examined the legality of the High Court -80 Gauhati RTI Rules vis-à-vis the RTI Act, the convenience offered by -85 23 High Court RTI Rules, the practice of the Public Information -100 24 Officers (PIOs) in replying to the RTI applications and the quality of disclosures made by the High Courts under Section Act. As per several judicial precedents of the Supreme Court, 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. To capture and compare the variances rules made under a particular statute cannot go beyond or between the High Courts on these 4 themes, we developed 4 against the parent statute. Any such rule can be struck down indices namely the legality index, the convenience index, the for being ultra vires the RTI Act. practice index and the disclosures index. In addition, we also examined the extent to which District Courts were making After studying the RTI Rules of the High Courts and the proactive disclosures under the RTI Act on their respective District Courts, we devised twelve criteria on the basis of e-courts websites. which we assessed the Rules. These criteria broadly fell into two categories. The first category pertained to ‘missing The Legality Index for the High Court RTI information’ which basically assessed the sufficiency of Rules information provided in the Rules to enable the filing of RTI applications. The second category pertained to the illegal This index measures the legality of the RTI Rules made by each deviations of the RTI Rules of each High Court vis-à-vis the High Court under Section 28 of the RTI Act. This provision RTI Act. For every violation under these twelve criteria, 10 of the RTI Act delegated substantial power to each public points were deducted for the purpose of this index. Figure authority to fix the fees payable for filing RTI applications, A illustrates the rankings and the scores of the various High the cost of providing information, the mode by which the Courts on the legality index. fee and cost can be paid to the public authority and for any other matter which is required under the law. We decided to measure the legality of the High Court RTI Rules because we discovered that several of these rules were ultra vires the RTI

1 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

The Convenience Index for the RTI Rules The Practice Index to measure the of each High Court responses by Public Information Officers Even if the RTI Rules of a High Court are completely legal, it is of High Courts entirely possible for the rules to make the process of requiring This index was developed to evaluate the responses of the information very inconvenient. For example, if the RTI Rules PIOs of all the High Courts to 3 sets of RTI applications that require payment of fees only in cash, rather than instruments we had filed with the High Courts to collect information on such as postal orders, it can become quite difficult to file RTI their budget statements, their audit reports and statistical applications through post, making it necessary for the citizen information required to be maintained by all High Courts to physically visit the premises of the public authority to file under Section 17 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. We the application in person. This is more inconvenient than the devised nine criteria against which the practices of each High option of filing an RTI application through post.

Therefore, for the purpose of this index we developed six Figure C: Practice Index criteria to examine whether the RTI Rules of each High Court Ranks Scores make it convenient for the citizens to seek information under Delhi 50 the RTI Act. To ensure objectivity, the , Karnataka 1 50 RTI Rules 2012 were used as the benchmark against which the Kerala 50 RTI Rules of the High Courts were assessed. If the High Courts Gauhati 4 40 had similar provisions as under the GoI Rules, no points were Gujarat 5 27 deducted. However, if the Rules of the High Courts provided Uttarakhand 6 20 comparatively less convenient mechanisms then 10 points Meghalaya 15 7 were deducted. The High Courts were also given additional Tripura 15 points if the procedure under their RTI Rules made it more Manipur 13 9 convenient for the citizens to obtain information under the Sikkim 13 RTI Act. Figure B illustrates the rankings and the scores of the Himachal Pradesh 11 12 Bombay 10 various High Courts on the convenience index. 12 Jharkhand 10 Rajasthan 14 3 Patna 0 15 Punjab & Haryana 0 Figure B: Convenience Index Madras 17 -30 Allahabad 18 -37 Scores Ranks Madhya Pradesh 19 -40 Calcutta -50 -10 1 Patna 20 -20 Delhi Orissa -50 2 -20 Kerala Telangana 22 -60 -25 4 Bombay Chhattisgarh 23 -80 -30 Himachal Pradesh -30 5 Punjab & Haryana -30 Sikkim Courts were scored. Out of the nine criteria, four criteria -40 Andhra Pradesh are based on the requirements laid out under the RTI Act -40 Calcutta and five are subjective criteria that we deemed important in -40 8 Telangana -40 Tripura order to measure meaningful compliance with the RTI Act. For -40 Uttarakhand the purposes of scoring, if the PIOs did not comply with the -50 Gauhati mandatory requirements of the RTI Act, points were deducted, -50 Jharkhand while points were awarded if the High Courts provided -50 Karnataka good quality information in their replies and answered each -50 13 Madhya Pradesh question individually. Replies that were deemed to be mala- -50 Manipur fide rejections were penalised accordingly. Figure C illustrates -50 Orissa the rankings and the scores of the various High Courts on the -50 Rajasthan practice index. -55 20 Allahabad -60 Gujarat -60 21 Madras -60 Meghalaya -65 24 Chhattisgarh

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 2 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

The Disclosures Index to measure Disclosures by District Courts under compliance with Section 4(1)(b) of the Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act RTI Act We undertook a survey of the e-courts websites of all the In addition to providing citizens with a statutory right to District Courts to assess if they as public authorities were obtain information, Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act also creates making disclosures under the RTI Act. We did not assess the a mandate for public authorities to proactively disclose quality of such disclosures but only the availability of such and disseminate information about their functioning. The disclosures across districts since not many District Courts categories of information to be disclosed, amongst others, were making such disclosures. We also assessed whether such information about the organisation and functions of the disclosures were made available in the local language of the employees, the documents under the control of each public state. Only the District Courts in Kerala, Punjab and Haryana authority, the rules and regulations used by the public authority made satisfactory disclosures under the RTI Act. None of to discharge its functions, the budgetary allocations made to the District Courts in , Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and expenditures incurred by the public authority, the details and made any disclosures under the RTI Act. of the PIOs and appellate authority. Only 15 High Courts made The remaining states did not perform much better, with only disclosures on their website under the RTI Act. The remaining a miniscule number of District Courts making the required 9 High Courts that we evaluated did not make any disclosures disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Since High Courts on their websites. are responsible for the administration of District Courts it is contingent on the former to ensure that the latter complies To assess the quality of the disclosures made by each High with the law. Court, we identified the essential information with regard to each category and scored the High Courts if they made that Conclusion information available. Some categories such as budgetary From our report, it is quite clear that there is a yawning gap statements etc. were deemed more relevant than others from between the judiciary’s bold pronouncements on the right the perspectives of institutional transparency and were thus to information and the manner in which the High Courts are weighted higher. Figure D illustrates the rankings and the implementing the RTI Act. Not only are the RTI Rules of several scores of the various High Courts on the disclosure index High Courts ultra vires the RTI Act, they also provide for a relatively inconvenient procedure when compared to the RTI Rules of the Government of India. Most importantly, the PIOs Figure D: Disclosure Index of the High Courts need to be sensitized that rejection of RTI Ranks Scores applications should be the exception, not the norm.

Kerala 1 59 Punjab & Haryana 2 57 The lack of good quality proactive disclosures by several Allahabad 51 High Courts, on their websites, marks the failure of the High Bombay 3 51 Courts to discharge a specific statutory obligation imposed Delhi 51 under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. The lack of administrative Gauhati 6 47 transparency, especially financial transparency, within High Madras 7 46 Courts is a matter of grave concern. Jharkhand 8 45 Gujarat 42 9 Ensuring greater administrative transparency within High Himachal 42 Courts will be the first step in the lengthy battle for meaningful Uttarakhand 11 39 judicial reforms in India. We are hopeful the High Courts Madhya Pradesh 12 35 will take corrective steps such as making amendments to Orissa 13 32 Karnataka 14 25 their respective rules, making better quality disclosures Chhattisgarh 15 22 introducing best practices. Towards this end, we are sending copies of this report to every High Court, along with specific recommendations for each High Court. The High Courts at Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Manipur, Meghalaya, Patna, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana and Tripura have not made any disclosures on their websites under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act

3 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

I Introduction

The right to information has existed as an abstract legal right in (MKSS).6 In its daily efforts to assist villagers, in claiming India since 1975 when a constitutional bench of the Supreme their entitlements from the government, it became evident Court of India located the “right to know” in the “concept of to the MKSS that access to government records was the key freedom of speech”.1 This was followed by other judgments, to demanding accountability from the government.7 The including a judgment in 1982 by a bench of seven judges of emphasis on procedural simplicity in the RTI Act was critical the Supreme Court where the right to information was more since this right to information was to be exercised by all specifically grounded in the fundamental right to free speech. citizens, especially the vulnerable and marginalised, on a daily In pertinent part, the court held that “…The concept of an basis against a bureaucracy that was entrenched in a culture of open government is the direct emanation from the right to discretion and secrecy. Similarly, the provision of penalties was know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech a specific demand made by the MKSS based on its experiences and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).”2 While in the villages of Rajasthan.8 By placing a strong emphasis on this articulation of the right to information was certainly the procedural rights of the citizenry versus the government, praiseworthy, it meant little to Indian citizens who lacked a the drafters of the RTI Act succeeded in building a legal simple, accessible and affordable legal framework to enforce framework that has ushered in a transparency revolution. this important right against an opaque state. Despite the conscious effort made by the drafters of the RTI Act It took the enactment of the Right to Information Act (RTI) in to reduce the room for exercise of discretionary powers, they 2005 to provide Indian citizens, with a strong legal right that still delegated critical rule making powers to the bureaucracy could be enforced through a procedural framework that was to determine key issues, such as the fee for filing applications, startlingly simple by the standards of both, conventional Indian fee for being provided copies of information and the mode of legislation, as well as by the standards of similar transparency payment of the fees.9 laws across the world.3 With the enactment of this ‘sunshine law’, Indian citizens could now demand from the state a copy As time has shown us, the aforementioned delegation of rule- of public records or answers to questions, without any need making power was a fatal mistake, especially in the context of to justify their request for information with reasons.4 The judicial institutions. We discovered this the hard way during procedure to be followed within the state apparatus on receipt the course of our attempts to get information from the High of a request for information, has been strictly regimented by Courts on different areas of judicial administration. Most of our the RTI Act and the bureaucracy’s discretion to evade or delay efforts began with scouring the websites of the High Courts requests has been tempered by a new system of penalties that to collect information for research on the issue of judicial could be recovered directly from the salaries of bureaucrats.5 reforms. Section 4 of the RTI Act requires all public authorities, Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, there was no precedent including High Courts, to disclose considerable information on in Indian law wherein Indian bureaucrats have had to pay their websites. When we realised that most of the information penalties from their pockets for not discharging their statutory required for the purpose of our research was unavailable on duties. the websites of the High Courts, we filed RTI applications with all High Courts requesting for such information. We The simplicity and effectiveness of the RTI Act was a result soon discovered that several High Courts were rejecting our of the strong influence of the lived experiences of civil applications on a number of grounds that went against the text society collectives like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghathan and spirit of the RTI Act. This prompted us to take a closer look

1 State of v Raj Narain [1975] 4 SCC 428 2 S.P. Gupta v and others [1981] Supp SCC 87 3 Vinita Deshmukh, ‘Hurrah India stands second in the world in global RTI rating’ (Moneylife, 25 July 2012) accessed 11 July 2019; Access Info, Global Right to Information Rating accessed 11 July 2019. 4 Right to Information Act 2005, s 6(2) 5 Right to Information Act 2005, s 20 6 Aruna Roy and MKSS, The RTI Story: Power to the People (Roli Books, 2018) 88-94 7 ibid. 8 ibid 313. 9 Right to Information Act 2005, s 28.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 4 WWW.LIVELAW.IN at the RTI Rules notified by different High Courts, leading to Supreme Court. This petition challenging the RTI Rules of the the realisation that several High Courts had gone far beyond , was kept pending for 6 years before the the permissible limits of the RTI Act, while drafting their court took up the matter for a hearing and passed a brief order respective RTI Rules. Many of these rules are vulnerable to in 2018.14 Rather than taking the proverbial bull by the horns being struck down for being ultra vires the RTI Act. Other High and ruling on the substantial issues of law, the Supreme Court Courts, while technically in compliance with the RTI Act, made preferred the route of vague directions none of which are it more difficult to file RTI applications when compared to the binding on High Courts. While this order did bring about some procedure laid down by the Government of India’s RTI Rules. change in the fees being charged by some High Courts, a lot remains to be done with regard to other aspects of how High It is surprising to learn that several High Courts have exercised Courts are enforcing the RTI Act on their administrative side. their rule-making powers under the RTI Act to draft RTI Rules that violate the letter of the RTI Act and offend the spirit of In an attempt to understand the scale of the problem at the peoples’ movements that led to the enactment of the law different High Courts, we embarked on a rather lengthy in the first place. Similar efforts by the bureaucracy ofthe research project to try and measure the degree to which High Central Government to dilute the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Courts were in compliance with the RTI Act. The 3 areas that Cost) Rules, 2005 as well as the RTI Act, have been successfully we focused on are the RTI Rules of the High Courts, the quality resisted by democratic protests of citizens.10 However the of disclosures made, by High Courts and the District Courts judiciary by the very nature of its institutional design, is as mandated by Section 4 of the RTI Act and the practices impervious to the kind of democratic pressures that forced the of the PIOs of the High Courts in actually responding to RTI government to rollback its efforts to dilute the RTI Act. Not only applications. are judges of the High Courts, not elected like the ministers of government, they are also not answerable to the legislature. The reason we chose to focus our efforts on the High Courts Further, the higher judiciary has rarely ever responded well was because these institutions, some of which predate the to street protests. In the past, protests against judicial orders Supreme Court, are the most important cogs in the wheels of have been threatened with sanctions for contempt of court.11 judicial administration in each state. By virtue of Articles 227, 229, 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution, the High Courts are Given the judiciary’s indifference to conventional democratic by law responsible for the administration and superintendence forms of protests, the only option for citizen groups was to of the District Judiciary. This includes the recruitment of judges document the violations and petition the High Courts for and administrative staff who man the District Judiciary. High amendments to their respective RTI rules.12 Some High Courts Courts are also responsible for preparing budgetary estimates did respond positively to these petitions by amending their RTI for the entire state judiciary. A poorly administered High Court Rules on the administrative side.13 As a result, most of such will most certainly result in a dysfunctional judiciary across the litigation against the High Court RTI Rules never translated entire state, which is why it is extremely important for High into significant judicial precedents. The most significant Courts to be transparent about their administrative affairs. In petition which could have transformed into a significant order to capture and contrast the results of our study across precedent was filed by Common Cause, an NGO, before the 24 High Courts covered in our survey we developed 4 indices.

10 Aruna Roy (n 6) 318; V Venkatesan, ‘The Central government notifies new RTI rules, which effectively curb citizen’s right to obtain information’ Frontline (Vol 29, Issue 18, 8-21 September 2012) accessed 27 September 2019; ‘Govern- ment proposes new rules for RTI applications, Activists oppose’ News18 (3 April 2017) accessed 27 September 2019 11 D Mahapatra, ‘Cannot protest or call bandhs against court orders’ Times of India (, 16 September 2016) accessed 27 September 2019; V Venkatesan, ‘Contempt in question’ Frontline (Vol 18 Issue 10 12-15 May 2001) accessed 27 September 2019 12 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, ‘An Analysis of the RTI Rules applicable to the and the Subordinate Courts’ (CHRI 2011) accessed 27 September 2019; Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, ‘An Analysis of the RTI rules of the Supreme Court, the and the Subordinate Courts’ (CHRI 2010) accessed 11 July 2019. 13 Press Trust of India, ‘HC decides to amend Delhi High Court RTI Rules 2006’ Business Standard (New Delhi, 26 February 2016) accessed 27 September 2019; ‘Challenge against Rajasthan High Court RTI rules; Court issues Notice on Law Student’s plea’ Live Law (10 February 2016) accessed 27 September 2019; ‘Punjab & Haryana High Court changes RTI rules after NLSIU graduate Arjun Sheo- ran’s PIL’ Lawoctopus (30 June 2014) accessed 11 July 2019 and Arjun Sheron v High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2017) SCC OnLine P&H 4103. 14 Common Cause v High Court of Allahabad (2018) 14 SCC 39. This case was clubbed with the following cases: Ram Niwas Singh v Registrar General, High Court of Allahabad T.C.(C) No. 129 of 2013; Sunil Kishore Ahya v Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2014; Lok Prahar, through its General Secretary S N Shukla v High Court of Allahabad and Ors.; Kishan Chand Jain v Hon Speaker of Legislative Assembly of UP and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 40 of 2016; Kishan Chand Jain v Hon Chairman of Legislative Council of UP and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 205 of 2016 and Dinesh Kumar Soni v The State of Chhatisgarh Law and Legislature Depart- ment and Ors. SLP(C) No. 30659 of 2017

5 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

The first index measures the 'legality' of the RTI Rules of each High Court i.e. whether the rules are in compliance with the requirements of the RTI Act.

The second index, measures the ‘convenience aspect’ of the RTI Rules of each High Court, where we try to capture the problems with those RTI Rules, which although in compliance with the RTI Act, made it ‘inconvenient’ to assert the right to information. For the purpose of this index, we used the Government of India RTI Rules, 2012 as a benchmark for comparison.

The third index, measures the responses of the High Courts to 3 different sets of RTI applications that we sent to all High Courts to source information for 3 other reports that we are working on regarding judicial administration across India.

The fourth index measures the compliance of the High Courts with the disclosure requirements under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Additionally, since the Districts Courts are also public authorities under the RTI Act, we surveyed the e-court websites of 673 Districts to see if they had made any Section 4 disclosures under the RTI Act.

These indices cover only 24 High Courts because at the time of writing this report the & Kashmir High Court was covered under the state’s own RTI Act, under which only residents of the state could request for information.15

We hope this comprehensive effort to highlight the lack of compliance of High Courts with the RTI Act, adds to earlier studies on judicial transparency, by other institutions such as the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative16, the Research Assessment and Analysis Group & Satark Nagrik Sangathan,17 the Azim Premji University18 and takes forward the conversation on judicial transparency.

15 The Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act 2009, s.3 (2). This position has changed after the amendment to Article 370 of the Constitution and the conver- sion of Jammu & Kashmir into a . Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar, ‘Central RTI Law to Now Apply to J&K and ’ The Wire (06 August 2019) accessed 9 September 2019; 16 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (n 12). 17 A Johri and A Bhardwaj, Tilting the Balance of Power- Adjudicating the RTI Act for the Oppressed and the Marginalised (2nd edn, Rajpal & Sons 2017). 18 R Hemrajani and Ors, The Implementation of the RTI Act 2005 in Nine High Courts of India- A Comparative Study (Legal Systems Reforms Project, Azim Premji University 2017).

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 6 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

II The RTI Rules – The Legality & Convenience Index

Like most legislations, the RTI Act delegates certain powers A. The Legality Index: Were the RTI to individual public authorities to draft their own Rules on Rules of the High Court in line with the certain aspects such as the fee for filing applications, cost of photocopies etc. Such delegation of power is a routine Requirements of the RTI Act? feature of law-making in most democracies. Most elected For the purpose of this index, the legal issues with the RTI Rules legislatures only lay out the broad policy in the parent statute of different High Courts can be put into 2 categories, which are and delegate the procedural details to the authorities charged explained below. with implementing the legislation. Delegation to an extent can be beneficial because it allows the implementing authority The first category captures those aspects of the RTI Rules to rapidly modify the Rules or regulations without going of the High Courts which have failed to provide all of the through the cumbersome procedures required for a legislative information that is required by citizens to exercise their right amendment. The lack of any requirement for legislative to information vis-à-vis the High Court. This includes, the fees approval, also means it becomes easier for the executive to that are payable and mode of payment of fees. The failure to draft or amend rules in a manner that undermines legislative provide this information is in essence a failure to meet the intent. requirements of Section 2819 of the RTI Act, which directs all public authorities to provide such information in their rules Section 28 of the RTI Act delegates to public authorities the in order to facilitate the filing of RTI applications by citizens. power to draft rules fixing the fees that may be charged for The silence of the RTI Rules of any of the High Courts on these filing an application requesting for information. Additionally, aspects, vastly increases the discretion of the PIO to reject RTI a vaguely worded sub-clause allows for the public authority applications on specious grounds. to make rules for “any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed”. Every High Court in the country has The second category captures those aspects of the RTI Rules exercised this power under Section 28 to notify its own RTI of different High Courts which are contrary to the text of the Rules. RTI Act and hence ultra vires the RTI Act.

For the purposes of measuring the legality of the RTI rules It is a fairly well settled proposition that rules made under a notified by High Courts, we developed 2 indices to measure legislation cannot contradict the wording of a legislation or the “legality” and “convenience” of the RTI rules of every High add substantial obligations to existing statutory requirements. Court. The legality index measures the compliance of the RTI Elucidating on this point, the Supreme Court in the case of Rules of every High Court with the legal requirements of the General Officer Commanding in Chief v. Subash Chandra Yadav20 RTI Act, while the “convenience” index, measures those aspects made the following useful observation: of the RTI rules which although legal, make it inconvenient for citizens to file applications or access the information under the “Rules framed under the provisions of a statute form part RTI Act. The factors forming each index, along with the scoring of the statute. Rules have statutory force. However before system, are explained below. a rule can have the effect of a statutory provision two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) it must conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed; and (2) it must also come within the scope and purview of

19 The text of Section 28 is as follows: “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. (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.” 20 General Officer Commanding in Chief v. Subash Chandra Yadav 1988 SCR (3) 62

7 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the rule making power of the authority framing the rule. Information Commission23 the held that If either of these two conditions is not fulfilled the rule so the Commission was a creation of the RTI Act, 2005 and its framed would be void.” powers had been clearly delineated under Sections 18 to 20. These, it held, did not include the power to determine the The scope of delegation under Section 28 of the RTI Act is fairly validity of the Rules that had been formulated under Section broad because of the existence of a boiler plate clause found in 28 of the Act. A decision of the CIC had also reached the same all Indian legislation, which allows public authorities like High conclusion in the context of the High Court of Madras Right Courts to “…make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act”. to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006.24 At Such a broad delegation of powers is however not an invitation most, Information Commissions can make “recommendations” for rule making authorities to make rules that go beyond, or to the High Courts to amend their rules.25 It is the prerogative which are contrary to, the parent statute from which they of the High Courts to accept the recommendations made by derive their rule making power. This is a well-accepted position the Information Commissions. of law backed by precedents of the Supreme Court. In one such judgment in the case of Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Ors. v. State of Scoring the 2 categories over 12 different 21 H.P. & Ors. a bench of the Supreme Court held the following: criteria:

“We are also of the opinion that a delegated power to We have split the 2 categories of ‘missing information’ and ultra legislate by making rules ‘for carrying out the purposes vires rules over 12 criteria which are explained below, along of the Act’ is a general delegation without laying down with the scoring mechanism for each criterion. For criteria any guidelines; it cannot be so exercised as to bring into that fall within the ‘missing information’ category, 10 points existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities were deducted per category of information that was missing not contemplated by the provisions of the Act itself.” in the High Court RTI Rules. No points were deducted if all the necessary information was available in the High Court RTI The logic behind this conclusion is that rule making authorities Rules. For criteria falling within the category of ultra vires rules are subordinate to the legislature which is the ultimate we deducted 10 points for every rule that was contradictory repository of the people’s power. Thus, the general rule when it to the spirit of the RTI Act. comes to delegation of rule-making power, is that rules cannot be contrary to the text of the parent statute from which it Criterion L1: Have the RTI rules been published on the derives power.22 HC Website? As per Section 4(1)(a) & Section 4(1)(b)(v) of the RTI Act it is Despite the law being crystal clear on the limits of delegated mandatory for all public authorities to publish through various legislation, several High Courts have included patently illegal media, including the internet, all rules being administered by clauses in their RTI Rules. For example, despite Section 8 of the public authority. This includes the RTI Rules of the relevant the RTI Act restricting the number of grounds for denying public authorities, without which it would be difficult for information to citizens, the RTI Rules of several High Courts citizens to understand the requirements to file RTI applications have included additional grounds for rejecting requests for with such public authorities. The absence of these rules on the information. websites of High Courts would require the RTI applicant to visit the premises of the High Court to procure a hard copy of The illegalities in the RTI Rules of various High Courts the rules and this would have an adverse impact on their ability have come under the scrutiny and criticism of the Central to exercise their right to information. As per our survey only 3 Information Commission (CIC). The CIC primarily deals High Courts, at Sikkim, Uttarakhand and Andhra Pradesh did with appeals and complaints against public authorities not have their respective RTI Rules available on their websites. under the RTI Act but they lack the power to make binding The RTI Rules of the were found on the determinations regarding the legality of RTI Rules made by website of the National Federation of Information Commission High Courts. In the case of Belma Mawri v. Meghalaya State in India (NFICI) rather than on the website of the Sikkim High

21 Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors 2000 (1) SCR 1054 22 Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 434; Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozilali Union v. State of Kerala (2006) 4 SCC 327 23 Belma Mawrie v. Chief Information Commission Meghalaya State Information Commission AIR 2016 Meghalaya 8. Also see B Bhattacharjee v. The Appellate Authority and Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya MANU/MG/0166/2015; Kamini Jaiswal v. Delhi High Court CIC/WB/A/2007/00418 which held that the CIC can only give recommendations and not strike down the law. 24 C.J. Karira v. PIO High Court of Madras CIC/SM/C/2011/901285 decided on 14 August 2014. Also see C.J Karia v. PIO CIC/SM/2011/901286, C.J. Karira v. PIO CIC/SM/C/2011/901287, C.J. Karira v PIO CIC/SM/2011/901288 and C.J. Karira v. PIO CIC/SM/C/2011/901289; CJ Karira v. PIO Himachal Pradesh High Court CIC/SM/C/2011/901290 25 Section 25(5) of the RTI Act

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 8 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Court.26 While the RTI Rules were both High Courts and District Courts. We considered the not displayed on the website, a link to the rules on the High District Courts to be covered by the High Court’s RTI Rules, Court website was displayed when we conducted a search if the rules clearly mentioned that it applied to even the on an internet search engine.27 For the Andhra Pradesh High District Courts or alternatively, if there was a provision in the Court, which was only recently bifurcated from the erstwhile rules for designating PIOs for District Courts. The availability High Court, the RTI Rules are not available on the of a payment method while filing RTI applications with the new website. However, for the purposes of evaluation of the District Courts was evaluated separately. The RTI Rules of remaining criteria under this index, we have presumed that the the remaining High Courts at Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya new High Court is following the same RTI Rules as the erstwhile Pradesh and Patna did not cover any of the District Courts Hyderabad High Court. For the , the thereby creating uncertainty for citizens wanting to file RTI RTI Rules were available on the High Court website but the applications with the District Courts. amendment to the Rules was not available on the website.

Five of the High Courts have Bombay, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, The High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim and Uttarakhand do separate RTI Rules to cover the Kerala, Punjab & Haryana not make available the RTI Rules on their websites. Telangana High Courts and the District High Court does not make available the amendments to the RTI Courts. Rules on its website. Fifteen of the High Courts Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, have a single set of RTI Rules Calcutta, Gauhati, Himachal Scoring: A total of 10 points were deducted against the High covering both High Courts and Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madras, Courts that did not have the RTI Rules or amendments available District Courts. Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, on their website. Tripura, Uttarakhand

Criterion L2: Are the District Courts covered by the Four of the High Courts do not Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya RTI Rules (either by notifying a separate set of District have any RTI Rules for District Pradesh, Patna Court rules or by expanding the scope of the High Court Courts Rules)?

As per Section 28 of the RTI Act, every public authority is Scoring: A total of 10 points were deducted if the District Courts required to notify its own rules to facilitate the implementation were not covered by the RTI Rules of the High Court and if there of the RTI Act. In the case of the judiciary, there has been some were no standalone RTI Rules for just the District Courts. confusion on whether the Chief Justice of a High Court can make rules for both the High Court and the District Judiciary Criterion L3: Has the authority to whom the payment is or whether the presiding District Judges could draft RTI Rules to be addressed for High Courts been mentioned? for their own District Courts. The general trend so far has been In our experience, one of the trickiest issues while filing for the High Courts to formulate specific RTI Rules for the RTI applications with High Courts, is the issue of payment. District Courts or make the High Court RTI Rules applicable to If the payment is inadequate or not addressed to the right the District Courts. The power of the High Courts to draft such authority the RTI application can be rejected. Since the power rules for the District Courts was challenged before the CIC, to determine the fee of filing RTI applications, as well as the which did not rule on the same on account of not having the mode of making the payment, has been delegated to the High jurisdiction to decide on the validity of these rules.28 Courts, it is incumbent on the High Courts to ensure that their RTI Rules specify the authority to whom the payment is to be During our survey of the RTI Rules of each High Court we made, especially when the mode of payment is such that it is discovered that High Courts at Bombay, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, required to be addressed to a particular person. For example, Kerala and Punjab & Haryana have 2 sets of RTI Rules, one an Indian Postal Order, which is one of the most convenient that covers only the High Courts and the other for the District modes of payment is required by law to be addressed to a Courts. A few other High Courts at Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, particular authority in whose account the money is to be Calcutta, Gauhati, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madras, deposited. For many High Courts, this authority may be Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, the Registrar General of the court, while for the Central Tripura and Uttarakhand had a single set of RTI Rules covering Government it is usually the Pay & Accounts Officers. Without

26 National Federation of Information Commissions in India, Rules framed by Rules framed the and High Courts being Competent Authori- ties u/s 2(e) (ii) & (iii) read with section 28 of Right to Information Act 2005 accessed 03 October 2019 27 See: https://highcourtofuttarakhand.gov.in/upload/contents/File-11.pdf & https://highcourtofuttarakhand.gov.in/upload/contents/File-109.pdf accessed 3 October 2019 28 C.J. Karira v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh CIC/SM/C/2011/901290, CJ Karira v. PIO Chhattisgarh High Court CIC/SM/C/2011/90128; C.J. Karira v. PIO, High Court of Orissa CIC/SM/C/2011/901289.

9 WWW.LIVELAW.IN the rules clearly specifying this information, applicants are left the method of payment of fees is only via court fee stamps. The clueless as to whom this payment is to be addressed. In our remaining High Courts had clearly provided for the authority survey of the RTI Rules of several High Courts, we discovered to whom payment had to be made for the District Courts. that High Courts at Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Orissa, Thirteen of the High Courts Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Telangana and Uttarakhand do not mention the name of the do not specify in their RTI Calcutta, Gujarat, Himachal authority to whom the payment is to be addressed. The lack of Rules, the authority to whom Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, this information makes it difficult for an applicant to pay the fee payment is to be addressed Madhya Pradesh, Madras, for the RTI application and is not in keeping with the mandate while filing RTI Applications Orissa, Patna, Telangana, with the District Courts Uttarakhand of Section 28 of the RTI Act. One possible reason to explain why these details were not mentioned in some of the RTI Rules is perhaps the fact that these rules originally recognised only Scoring: A total of 10 points were deducted if the High Court or court fee stamps as the mode of payment. Court fee stamps District Court rules did not clearly identify the authority in whose cannot be addressed to any person. When some of these name the payment is to be addressed for applications filed with High Courts amended their rules to include IPOs as a mode of the District Court. payment, the drafters most likely forgot to include the name of the authority in whose name the payment was to be made. Criterion L5: Are there limitations on the number of questions, subject matters or words in a single RTI Application? Nine of the High Courts in Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, their RTI Rules do not mention Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Mandatory word limits or limitations on the number of the name of the authority to Pradesh, Kerala, Orissa, questions or on the subject matters that can be covered in a whom the payment is to be Telangana, Uttarakhand single RTI application has been one of the recurring demands addressed of the bureaucracy, presumably to curtail lengthy and vague RTI applications. In 2010, it was rumoured that the Central Scoring: A total of 10 points were deducted on the index, if the Government was planning to impose a word limit of 250 words RTI Rules failed to provide information regarding the authority for every RTI Application.29 These attempts have come under to whom payment has to be made. Since the only method of harsh criticism from RTI activists who were worried that such payment of application fee provided in the High Court RTI Rules of limitations on question formats etc. would make it easier for Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand is via court fee stamps, points have PIOs to reject RTI applications.30 In 2012, the Government of not been deducted for the said High Court under this category. India did amend its rules advising applicants to restrict RTI applications to a word limit of 500 words but with the caveat Criterion L4: Has the authority to whom the payment is that an application could not be rejected for crossing the word to be addressed for District Courts been mentioned? limit of 500 words. Since some High Courts did notify different RTI Rules for the District Courts, we applied the same test as the previous The High Courts have not shied away from imposing such question, to evaluate whether the High Court RTI Rules or restrictions in their RTI Rules. The Delhi High Court places the specific RTI Rules for District Courts clearly specified the restrictions on the number of subjects that can be covered authority to whom payment was to be addressed in case an in an RTI application. The High Courts at Allahabad, Gauhati, RTI application was filed with a District Court. As mentioned Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya and Sikkim place a limit earlier, a failure to clearly identify the authority to whom on the number of ‘items’ that can be asked, which arguably payment is to be made makes it difficult for an applicant to places limits on both the number of questions and on subject pay the fee for the RTI application. The lack of this information matter. The Orissa High Court uses a slightly different frustrates the mandate under Section 28 of the RTI Act. As per language, requiring that separate applications be filed for our survey of the High Court and District Court RTI Rules, the separate records of information. The Chhattisgarh High Court following High Courts did not provide this information: Andhra has placed limits on both the number of words and the number Pradesh, Bombay, Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal of subjects that can be covered in an RTI application. Finally, Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, the High Courts at Himachal Pradesh, Patna and Tripura have Madras, Orissa, Patna, Telangana and Uttarakhand. In the placed limits on both the number of years the information can case of the High Courts at Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, the be asked for and the number of subjects that can be covered. authority was presumably not required to be mentioned since

29 Venkatesan (n 10). 30 Ankur Paliwal, ‘New draft rules for RTI draws flak, Down To Earth (04 July 2015) accessed 9 August 2019.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 10 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Such limitations or restrictions on word limits, subject matter, This criterion was specifically included in our survey because items, records, questions or years are ultra vires the parent the RTI Rules of High Courts of Bombay, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, statute because they contradict the language of Section 6 Gauhati, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, of the RTI Act, which lays down the prerequisites for filing Manipur, Meghalaya, Patna, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand make an RTI application. This provision only requires that the it mandatory to follow a specified format while filing RTI application be in one of the official languages, accompanied by applications. In our experience some of the High Courts, which the prescribed fee and addressed to the PIO. By introducing prescribe a format, enforce the requirement very rigorously. such limits to filing an application, the RTI Rules of various As with the rules on word limits, we argue that mandatory High Courts are introducing an entirely new condition to file forms prescribed by High Courts under their RTI Rules are an RTI application, in effect modifying Section 6 of the RTI ultra vires the RTI Act. This is because Section 6 of the Act only Act. This is clearly impermissible because of precedents like requires that the application be in one of the official languages, Kunj Behari Lal which, as explained earlier, have held that rules accompanied by the prescribed fee and addressed to the PIO. being delegated legislation cannot add “…substantive rights or By creating a mandatory format, the RTI Rules of High Courts obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the provisions are adding a requirement to Section 6 of the RTI Act, which is of the Act itself”. In addition, it is worth mentioning that not permissible under the precedents such as Subash Chandra experts like Justice A.P. Shah have also expressed their opinion Yadav and Kunj Behari Lal. In these cases, the Supreme Court that word limits for RTI applications are unconstitutional.31 has made it clear that delegated legislation has to stay within the confines of the parent statute and cannot create new obligations under the law. Types of Limitation Imposed on High Courts in Violation a single RTI Application Thirteen of the High Courts, Bombay, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Word limits Allahabad, Chhattisgarh in their RTI Rules, prescribe Gauhati, Gujarat, Himachal mandatory forms for filing RTI Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya A limit on the number of Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Himachal Applications and/or Appeals Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, subject matters Pradesh, Patna and Tripura Patna, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand A limit on the item numbers/ Allahabad, Gauhati, Madhya records of information Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa and Sikkim Scoring: A score of 10 points was deducted if a mandatory format was prescribed by the High Court’s RTI Rules for the purpose of A limit on the number of years Himachal Pradesh, Patna and filing an RTI application. that can be covered in a single Tripura RTI application Criterion L7: Does the applicant have to provide a declaration of bona-fide intent or a declaration that Scoring: 10 points were deducted for each restriction placed on the motive is proper or legal either by the rules or the the number of words, subject matter, items, records or years that mandatory forms (for either the application or the can be asked in a single RTI application. appeal)?

Criterion L6: Have the rules made it mandatory to file As mentioned earlier, the RTI Act does not require any citizen RTI applications or appeals in a specified format? to provide reasons justifying a request for information. As per Section 6, the only requirement is that the application for One of the hallmarks of the RTI Act is that it does not prescribe information be made in the official language of the state along any specific format to file an RTI application. The conscious with the required fee. The provision also states, in no uncertain choice to not prescribe a format was perhaps driven by the fact terms, that citizens are not required to provide any reason that mandatory forms vastly increase the complexity of the justifying their request for information under the Act. This filing process thereby increasing the probability of rejections was an important provision because creating any substantial by the bureaucracy. The Department of Personnel & Training positive obligations on the part of citizens, to provide reasons (DoPT) of the Government of India has restated the above for requesting information, would have provided an easy route principle in its circulars to public authorities reminding them for the bureaucracy to reject RTI applications. that they cannot reject RTI applications for not following a 32 prescribed format. In the past, the CIC has ruled against the However, as we discovered during the course of our survey, Secretariat of the Vice-President when an RTI application was High Courts like Allahabad, Calcutta, Delhi, Gauhati, Gujarat, rejected on the grounds that it was not filed in a prescribed Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orrisa, 33 format. Patna, Rajasthan and Sikkim made it mandatory for applicants

31 Venkatesan (n 10). 32 DoPT Office Memorandum F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007 accessed 16 July 2019. 33 Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira v Vice-President’s Secretariat 2010 SCC OnLine CIC 426.

11 WWW.LIVELAW.IN to make a bona-fide declaration of intent while filing anRTI Scoring: 10 points were deducted if a declaration of bona-fide or a application. Most of these bona-fide declarations either declaration stating that the information sought for is not excluded require “a positive assertion that the motive for obtaining such under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act was a mandatory requirement information is proper and legal” or that the information sought under the High Court’s RTI Rules. for is not excluded under Sections 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and pertains to the public authority in question. From a practical Criterion L8: Are there categories of information perspective, these declarations make little sense unless the exempted from disclosure, over and above the High Court in question intends to prosecute persons under exemptions listed under Section 8 of the RTI Act? Section 191 of the which criminalises the Section 8 of the RTI Act has a long list of exemptions listing giving of false evidence or false declaration or false statement. out the grounds for non-disclosure of information. These It is unlikely any such prosecution will ever be launched but the include grounds like privacy, commercial confidence, security mere threat of a prosecution for an incorrect declaration may of the state, ongoing investigations etc. The breadth of the have a chilling effect on future RTI applicants. In our experience exceptions directly impacts the scope of the substantial right. the requirement for such a declaration will be used as a ground for rejecting applications where applicants have forgotten to Our survey discovered that the RTI Rules of various High make such a declaration, thereby providing an easy handle for Courts at Bombay, Delhi, Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Kerala, the PIOs to evade the request. Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tripura have created additional grounds for non- From a legal perspective, these requirements for declarations disclosure of information over and above those listed in appear to be illegal. Some of these mandatory requirements Section 8 of the RTI Act. For example, Rule 13 of the Bombay for declarations have been questioned by the CIC in the past. High Court RTI Rules has a long list of information that is not required to be shared by the PIO, including one vaguely In the case of Ajit Kumar Modi v High Court of Jharkhand34 the worded provision that exempts all “information which is not in CIC was confronted with Rule 9(a) of the Jharkhand High the public domain”. When Parliament has so clearly defined, in Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 which required Section 8 of the RTI Act, an exhaustive list of grounds on the every RTI application to be supported by a positive assertion basis of which information can be exempted from disclosure, that the motive for obtaining the requested information it would most certainly be illegal for the public authority to was proper and legal. The CIC reasoned that this provision draft additional grounds of exemptions and substantially alter was in contravention of Section 6(2) and despite lacking the the scheme of the parent statute.36 There are several judicial statutory power to decide on the legality of rules, directed precedents which have clarified this position of law, including the Chief Justice of the High Court of Jharkhand to withdraw the previously discussed precedent of the Supreme Court the rule in question. A similar provision in the RTI Rules of the in the Kunj Behari Lal case. This is especially true because Allahabad High Court was also directed to be withdrawn by the the RTI Act was premised on disclosure being the norm, and Commission.35 However, as explained earlier, the Belma Mawri refusal, the exception.37 It is submitted that these additional judgment is very clear that Information Commissions cannot restrictions are liable to being struck down for being ultra vires decide on the legality of RTI Rules. Hence the aforementioned the parent statute. directions of the Information Commission do not have any legal effect. Nonetheless, it could be argued that these High Courts The CIC has repeatedly ruled against public authorities, had a moral obligation to amend their rules to comply with the which have cited such prohibitions in their RTI Rules to not law. However, it appears that neither Jharkhand nor Allahabad disclose information. In one case that involved the provisions High Courts amended their RTI rules to delete the provisions of the Delhi Districts Courts (Right to Information) Rules, requiring citizens to make declarations as a perquisite to filing 2008, the CIC made an observation that the RTI Rules for an RTI application. the Delhi District Courts could not exempt more categories of information than provided for in the RTI Act.38 In pertinent Thirteen of the High Courts, Allahabad, Calcutta, Delhi, part, the Commission made the following observation: in their RTI Rules, mandate Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, a declaration of intent or Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, knowledge while filing an RTI Meghalaya, Orrisa, Patna, Application and/or Appeal Rajasthan and Sikkim

34 Ajit Kumar Modi v. High Court of Jharkhand 2010 SCC OnLine CIC 12179. 35 Ajay S. Jajodia v. High Court of Allahabad 2010 SCC OnLine CIC 9907. 36 Add. District (Rev.) Delhi Admn v. Siri Ram (2000) 5 SCC 451. 37 CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. S.C. Agarwal Delhi HC (2009) 162 DLT 135. Also see Bhagat Singh v. CIC Delhi High Court MANU/DE/8756/2007 p13 holding that Section 8 must be strictly construed; Suraj Prakash Manchanda v. Public Information Officer, Tiz Hazari Courts No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147 holding that the no public body is permitted under the RTI Act to take upon itself the role of the legislature and import exemptions not provided under Section 8 and Section 9. 38 Harish Lamba v PIO District & Sessions Judge New Delhi MANU/CIC/0455/2018.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 12 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

“The Commission takes note of the fact that while the Criterion L9: Do the High Court RTI Rules confer a parent statute i.e. The RTI Act, enumerates only 10 power on the Appellate Authority to impose penalties exceptions to the general right to receive information, for either a failure to provide correct information or for the Delhi District Court (Right to Information) Rules adds a delay in providing information? further 13 ‘non statutory exceptions’ if the information One of the key reasons attributed to the early successes of sought related to Delhi District Courts. Clause (xiii) of Rule the RTI Act was the power of Information Commissions to 7, is an overreaching clause which can deny information on penalise PIOs who rejected RTI applications without adequate “any other reason”. It is couched as a residuary ‘disabling’ reasons or for mala-fide reasons. Since the penalties would provision, which can accommodate ‘any other reason’ be recovered directly from the salary of the PIOs, it created justifying non-disclosure of information. Such an open- pressure on the PIO to comply with the terms of the RTI Act. ended exception cannot be carved out while enacting a Section 20 of the RTI Act capped the maximum penalty that subordinate legislation. Similarly, Rule 9(x) of the Delhi could be imposed on a public servant, for providing incorrect, District Court (Right to Information) Rules also runs incomplete or misleading information at Rs. 25,000. However counter to the mandate of Section 8(1)(b) as the former as per this provision, only the Information Commissions can declares all information relating to judicial proceedings impose penalties. We discovered during the course of our as excepted from disclosure whereas RTI Act nowhere survey that the RTI Rules of some High Courts like Calcutta, contemplates such a blanket exemption of an entire range Gauhati, Gujarat, Manipur, Meghalaya, Punjab & Haryana and of information.” Tripura have conferred powers on the Appellate Authority to impose penalties on the PIO for providing incorrect, There have been other cases where the CIC has refused to incomplete or misleading information. We presume that the enforce restrictions in the RTI Rules of High Courts against Appellate Authority means the First Appellate Authority the disclosure of marks obtained by the individual in an under Section 19 of the RTI Act. This is usually, an officer who examination that was conducted by the judiciary in discharge is senior in rank to the PIO. Rules of such nature are vulnerable of its administrative functions.39 to being struck down because the RTI Act does not empower High Courts to vest penal powers in their own officers to punish For the purposes of this criterion, we disregarded provisions in PIOs. As explained earlier there are multiple precedents of the the RTI Rules of High Court that barred judicial pleadings from Supreme Court which have held that delegated legislation has being shared with citizens under the RTI Act because this is a to conform to the parent statute. very contentious issue with even the Registry of the Supreme Court refusing to respond to RTI applications requesting for copies of pleadings filed before it. A single judge of the Delhi Seven of the High Courts, in Calcutta, Gauhati, Gujarat, High Court has ruled in favour of the Registry of the Supreme their RTI Rules, empower the Manipur, Meghalaya, Punjab & Appellate Authority to impose Haryana and Tripura 40 Court in the first appeal and the matter is currently pending a penalties for failure to provide second round of appeal before the Division Bench.41 correct information or for a delay in providing information

Thirteen of the High Courts, in Bombay, Delhi, Gauhati, their RTI Rules, have created Gujarat, Jharkhand, Kerala, Scoring: A score of 10 points was deducted if the RTI Rules of a additional grounds for non- Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, High Court vested in their appellate authorities the power to disclosure of information, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, impose a penalty on PIOs for providing incorrect, incomplete or over and above those listed in Sikkim, Tripura Section 8 of the RTI Act false information.

Criterion L10: Instead of transferring the application, Scoring: A score of 5 points was deducted for each additional as required under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, do the category of exemption that was beyond the text of Section 8 of RTI Rules of the High Court require the return of the the RTI Act. We did not deduct any points if the text of Section 8 application advising the applicant to file with the was reproduced in the RTI Rules of the High Courts. correct public authority?

One of the main challenges while filing an RTI application is identifying the correct public authority which is the true custodian of the public information in question. In our experience even the bureaucracy sometimes gets confused about which department has the relevant records. The drafters

39 Vipin Kumar v Tiz Hazari Court 2014 SCC OnLine CIC 3157; Keshav Kaushik v High Court of Allahabad CIC/WB/A/2010/000222. 40 Registrar Supreme Court of India v. RS Misra 244 (2017) DLT 179 41 R S Misra v Registrar, Supreme Court of India LPA 636/2018 before the High Court of Delhi

13 WWW.LIVELAW.IN of the RTI Act in their wisdom pre-empted the possibility The CIC followed the above line of reasoning when it held of RTI applications being rejected on the grounds of being that the imposition of a fee of Rs. 50 for filing a first appeal, filed with the wrong department by including an obligation, by the Delhi District Court (Right to Information) Rules did in Section 6(3), on the receiving department to transfer the not conform to the provisions and the spirit of the RTI Act. It RTI application to the public authority which is most likely to therefore recommended that the Delhi High Court amend the have the information requested for by the citizen. However, in rules accordingly.42 The rule was subsequently amended in our survey of the RTI rules, we found that the High Courts of 2014 by the Delhi High Court to delete the requirement for Gauhati, Gujarat, Manipur and Meghalaya required their public payment of a fee for the purpose of filing an appeal. information officers to return RTI applications to citizens if the subject matter of the application did not pertain to the High Nine of the High Courts, in Bombay, Chhattisgarh, Court. The Sikkim High Court had both, a transfer provision their RTI Rules, impose a cost Gauhati, Madhya Pradesh, and a separate provision, akin to the one discussed above. This for the filing of first appeals Manipur, Meghalaya, provision is expressly contrary to Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tripura which imposes a positive obligation on public authorities to transfer RTI applications which may not pertain to their office, Scoring: A score of 10 points was deducted if the RTI Rules of the within a period of 5 days to the public authority which has the High Court prescribed a cost to file an appeal under the RTI Act to competence to reply to the queries in question. As explained the first appellate authority within the High Court. earlier, delegated legislation cannot go against the terms of the parent statute. In this case, Section 6(3) of the RTI Act has been Criterion L12: Are there any other additional blatantly contradicted by the RTI Rules that have mandated violations? the return and not transfer of RTI applications. This criterion was included to capture those unique provisions of RTI Rules of different High Courts which are in violation of Five of the High Courts, in Gauhati, Gujarat, Manipur, the RTI Act but could not be captured under the other heads of their RTI Rules, require PIOs Meghalaya, Sikkim the index. For example, the RTI Rules of the Chhattisgarh High to return RTI applications requesting for information Court mandatorily require the applicant to appear before the which is not within their public authority after the submission of an RTI application.43 jurisdiction. This is contrary to This requirement is vulnerable to being struck down as ultra Section 6(3) of the RTI Act vires the scheme of the RTI Act, since Section 6(2) merely requires a citizen to submit their contact details along with Scoring: A score of 10 points has been deducted if the RTI Rules of the application. The underlying assumption of the RTI Act is the High Court contradict the wording of Section 6(3) of the RTI that the entire application process can be completed through Act. written applications rather than oral hearings. In fact, no other High Court has a requirement for an oral hearing in order to Criterion L11: Is there a cost imposed by the High Court process an RTI Application. RTI Rules for filing an appeal against the denial of information by a Public Information Officer? Rule 4(7) of the Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005, states that judicial officers cannot be summoned The RTI Act requires the payment of a fee at the time of filing by the CIC.44 We believe this rule is ultra vires Section 18(3) of an RTI application. Section 6 of the legislation clearly specifies the RTI Act which specifically vests in the Central and State this requirement. There is however no such requirement Information Commissions, the power to summon any person mentioned in Section 19 of the RTI Act, which allows for the while inquiring into any matter under the RTI Act. filing of appeals to the first appellate authority, who is usually an officer superior to the PIO within the same department. The RTI Rules of the as published on its website are illegible and dim while the Sikkim High Court RTI However, as we discovered, the RTI rules of High Courts at Rules on the other hand do not have continuous numbering Bombay, Chhattisgarh, Gauhati, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, make it challenging to understand the Rules. Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tripura imposed a cost for the filing of first appeals. When the parent statute has limited the charging of fees for only RTI applications and not RTI appeals, the rules cannot create new obligations for citizens and any such rule will be ultra vires the parent statute because of precedents of the Supreme Court like Kunj Behari Lal.

42 L.G. Dass v. Patiala House Court 2014 SCC OnLine CIC 8330. 43 Rule 4, Chhattisgarh High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 44 Rule 4, Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 14 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

High Courts with Additional Description of the Violation Violations

Chhattisgarh Rule 4, Chhattisgarh High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 mandatorily require the applicant to appear before the public authority after the submission of an RTI application.

Gujarat Rule 4(7) of the Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005, states that judicial officers cannot be summoned by the CIC.

Patna Rules as published on the website are illegible and dim.

Sikkim Rules do not have continuous numbering.

Scoring: A score of 10 points was deducted for every additional violation that we observed in the RTI Rules.

We have illustrated the criteria wise scores obtained by all the High Courts under the legality index in ‘Figure 1’. A key detailing all the criteria under which the scores have been awarded is provided in the next page.

15 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Key for the Detailed Legality Index (Figure 1)

Criteria Points

L1 Have the rules been published on the High Court -10• if the rules are unpublished or cannot be located on website? the website Have the rules been published on the High Court • -10 if the rules are unpublished or cannot be located on L1 •0 if the rules are available on the High Court website website? the website • 0 if the rules are available on the High Court website L2 Are the District Courts covered by a separate set of -10• if there are no rules regarding the District Courts RTI Rules or under the the High Court’s RTI Rules? •0 if the District Courts have a separate set of rules or if Are the District Courts covered by a separate set of • -10 if there are no rules regarding the District Courts L2 they are covered under the High Court Rules RTI Rules or under the the High Court’s RTI Rules? • 0 if the District Courts have a separate set of rules or if they are covered under the High Court Rules L3 Has the authority to whom the payment is to be -10• if the rules are silent or the authority is not addressed for High Courts been mentioned in the RTI mentioned Has the authority to whom the payment is to be • - 10 if the rules are silent or the authority is not L3 Rules? •0 if the authority has been clearly mentioned or not addressed for High Courts been mentioned in the RTI mentioned required to be mentioned Rules? • 0 if the authority has been clearly mentioned or not required to be mentioned L4 Has the authority to whom the payment is to be -10• if the rules are silent or the authority is not mentioned addressed for District Courts been mentioned in the •0 if the authority has been clearly mentioned or not Has the authority to whom the payment is to be • -10 if the rules are silent or the authority is not mentioned L4 RTI Rules? required to be mentioned addressed for District Courts been mentioned in the • 0 if the authority has been clearly mentioned or not RTI Rules? required to be mentioned L5 Are there restrictions in the RTI Rules on the number -10• if a word limit is prescribed of items, records, subject matter, words or years -10• if a subject matter limit is prescribed Are there restrictions in the RTI Rules on the number • - 10 if a word limit is prescribed L5 that can be asked in a single RTI application? -10• if there is a limit on the number of items/ records of questions, records, subject matter, words or years • of-10 information if a subject ormatter a limit limit on the is prescribed number of years that can be asked in a single RTI application? •0 if-10 none if there have is been a limit prescribed on the number of questions • 0 if none have been prescribed L6 Have the RTI Rules made it mandatory to RTI -10• if following the prescribed the format is made L6 applicationsHave the RTI and Rules/or madeappeals it mandatoryin a to format?file RTI • mandatory- 10 if prescribing to the format in the form is made applications and/or appeals in a specified format? •0 ifmandatory the forms have not been made mandatory • 0 if the forms have not been made mandatory [NOTE: No points have been deducted if the rules are silent on [NOTE:the form No beingpoints mandatory have been or if deducted they note that if the the requirementrules are silent or if theyto follow note a that form the is not requirements mandatory] are not mandatory]

L7L7 Do the RRTITI Rules require the applicant to prprovideovide a -10• if10 decla if declarationration is mandatory is mandatory decladeclarationration of intent or knowledge, while filing an an R TIRTI •0 if0 noif no decla declarationration is isrequired required application or appeal? [NOTE: No points have been deducted if the rules are silent or if they note that the requirement is not mandatory] L8 Are the categories of information, exempted from -5• for every additional category over and above the disclosure in the RTI Rules, over and above the Section 8 exemptions L8 Are the categories of information, exempted from • - 5 for every additional category over and above the exdisclosureemptions in listed the RTI under Rules, Section over and8 of abovethe RTI the Act? •0 ifSection there is8 noexemptions provision on exemption from disclosure exemptions listed under Section 8 of the RTI Act? • 0 if there is no provision on exemption from disclosure L9 Do the High Court RTI Rules confer a power on the -10• if the Appellate Authority has been conferred with L9 AppellateDo the High Authority Court RTI to Rulesimpose confer penalties a power on PIOs on the for • the-10 powerif the Appellate to impose Authority penalties has been conferred with eitherAppellate a failure Authority to pro tovide impose correct penalties information for either or a •0 ifthe the power penalty to imposehas not penaltiesbeen reduced forfailure a del toay provide in providing correct information information or for a delay in • 0 if the penalty has not been reduced providing information? L10 Instead of transferring the application, as required -10• if the transfer provision is contradicts Section 6(3) under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, do the RTI Rules of •0 if the transfer provision has not been amended L10 Instead of transferring the application, as required • - 10 if the transfer provision is contradicts Section 6(3) theunder High Section Court 6(3) require of the the RTI return Act, doof thethe applicationRTI Rules of • 0 if the transfer provision has not been amended advisingthe High the Court applicant require to the return with the of thecorrect application public authority?advising the applicant to file with the correct public authority? L11 Is there a cost imposed by the High Court RTI Rules for -10• if cost has been imposed an appeal against the denial of information by a •0 if no cost has been imposed L11 Is there a cost imposed by the High Court RTI Rules for • - 10 if cost has been imposed Publicfiling Informationan appeal against the denial of information by a • 0 if no cost has been imposed Public Information Officer? L12 Are there any other additional violations in the High -10• for every violation Court RTI Rules? L12 Are there any other additional violations in the High • -10 for every violation Court RTI Rules?

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 16 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Figure 1: Detailed Legality Index

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12

Madras 1 -10 -10

Jharkhand 2 -10 -5 -15

Allahabad 3 -10 -10 -20

Karnataka 3 -10 -10 -20

Punjab & Haryana 3 -10 -10 -20

Andhra Pradesh 6 -10 -10 -10 -30

Telangana 6 -10 -10 -10 -30

Calcutta 8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -40

Uttarakhand 8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -40

Himachal Pradesh 8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -40

Kerala 8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -40

Bombay 12 -10 -10 -20 -10 -50

Chhattisgarh 12 -20 -10 -10 -10 -50

Rajasthan 12 -10 -10 -20 -10 -50

Delhi 15 -10 -10 -10 -10 -15 -55

Orissa 15 -10 -10 -10 -10 -15 -55

Tripura 15 -10 -25 -10 -10 -55

Patna 18 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -60

Madhya Pradesh 18 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -60

Sikkim 20 -10 -10 -10 -5 -10 -10 -10 -65

Manipur 21 -10 -10 -10 -20 -10 -10 -10 -80

Gauhati 21 -10 -10 -10 -20 -10 -10 -10 -80

Meghalaya 23 -10 -10 -10 -25 -10 -10 -10 -85

Gujarat 24 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -20 -10 -10 -10 -100

Ranks Scores

Points Deducted -5 -10 -15 -20 -25

17 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

B. The Convenience Index - Did the Criterion C1: Are the rules available in the local RTI Rules of the High Court Provide language on the website of the High Court? Convenient Procedures for the Citizens? The RTI Act does not make it compulsory to publish the RTI rules in the local language of the state. At most, Section 4(4) Separate from the legality index, we also examined the High of the RTI Act requires PIOs to take into “consideration…the Court RTI rules from the perspective of convenience of the local language” while disseminating information throughout citizen, i.e. whether the rules prescribed a procedure that the state. Most state governments publish the RTI Rules of was convenient enough to be used by the average citizen to the High Courts in the state gazettes in both English and the secure information from the High Court. It was necessary to local language of the state. The High Court merely has to make examine the rules from this perspective because it is entirely available both English and the local language version. However possible for the rules to be absolutely legal but at the same most High Courts usually make the RTI Rules available on their time, in reality make it punishingly inconvenient for citizens website in English only. The only exception to this rule has to file applications. For example, it is completely legal fora been the Patna High Court and, in part, the Allahabad High public authority to require that the payment of RTI fees be Court (that has made available only some of the amendments made only in cash to the PIOs. This is legal because the RTI Act in Hindi). Unless a citizen has access to the RTI Rules in a delegates this power to decide the mode of payment, to each language they can understand, they cannot effectively counter public authority. However, in practice a requirement to make a reluctant bureaucracy. While not a legal requirement, the the payment only in cash would make it necessary to visit the failure to provide rules in a language that is understood by all court premises to file the RTI application. This can be time citizens certainly makes it inconvenient for those citizens to consuming, especially if the citizen is not living in the city where file RTI applications. the High Court is located. If postal orders or demand drafts were accepted as the mode of payment, it would be feasible for citizens to file RTI applications through post thereby saving Two of the High Courts make Allahabad (Allahabad has made available their RTI Rules in available only some of the time and energy. local language amendments in Hindi), Patna

In order to maintain some objectivity in measuring the ‘convenience’ aspect of each High Court’s RTI rules, we used Scoring: A score of 10 points was deducted for High Courts which the Government of India’s (“GOI”) Right to Information Rules, did not make the RTI Rules available in the local official languages 2012 as the benchmark for this index. The logic for this was on the website of the High Court. 5 points were deducted if only the fact that the GOI’s Rules provide a very convenient route the amendment was available in the local language. to file RTI applications. This is in large part because ofan active pressure campaign on the government by civil society Criterion C2 & C3: Do the RTI Rules of the High organisations who wanted to ensure that the procedure to file Court charge more than Rs. 10 as the fee of filing a RTI applications was kept simple and convenient.45 The only RTI Application? Do the RTI Rules of the High Court additional parameter we included in this index, for reasons charge more than Rs. 2 per page as the cost of providing discussed elsewhere was whether the rules were available in photocopies of documents in response to an RTI the local language of the states. Application? As mentioned in the introduction of this report, the RTI Rules The rule of scoring that was followed in this index was that no of most High Courts had prescribed very high fees for the filing points were deducted if the RTI Rules of a High Court provided of RTI applications. Some High Courts were charging fees as the same options as the government rules. We only deducted high as Rs. 500. This was fifty times the amount charged by the points if the High Court rules provided for less convenient Government of India and was clearly intended to discourage options than the GOI’s rules. In case the High Court rules the filing of RTI applications. In 2012, the NGO Common Cause provided for more convenient options than the GOI, additional challenged several facets of the RTI Rules of the Allahabad points were given. High Court including the rule prescribing Rs. 500 as the cost of filing an RTI application.46 At the time Common Cause had argued that Section 7(5) of the RTI Act required all public authorities to charge a ‘reasonable’ fee and that a fee of Rs. 500 would be unreasonable in a state like Uttar Pradesh where the average income of a person was approximately Rs. 70 per

45 For a detailed history of the campaign to keep the RTI Act afloat please refer to history on the website of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative at https:// www.humanrightsinitiative.org/content/national-level-rti accessed 3 October 2019. 46 Common Cause v. High Court of Allahabad (2018) 14 SCC 39. Also see PTI, SC caps fee charged by HCs for information under RTI Law at Rs. 50, Outlook India (20 March 2018) accessed 17 July 2019.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 18 WWW.LIVELAW.IN day.47 The Supreme Court decided this case only in 2018 and documents rather than the normal practice wherein applicants that too, in a very briefly reasoned order without tackling the are expected to pay the exact sum calculated by the PIO as the substance of Common Cause’s argument on ‘reasonableness’ photocopying cost. of the fees under the RTI Act. With specific regard to the cost of RTI applications, the Court stated the following: There is no logical reason for the High Courts to charge fees that are higher than the Government of India. “We are of the view that, as a normal Rule, the charge for the application should not be more than Rs.50/- Six of the High Courts charge Allahabad, Chhattisgarh, and for per page information should not be more than more than Rs. 10 for filing an Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt RTI application Meghalaya and Rajasthan with differently. This will not debar revision in future, if situation so demands.” Ten of the High Courts charge Allahabad, Chhattisgarh, more than Rs. 2 for providing Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, photocopies of documents Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, While this order was generally well received in the media Manipur, Meghalaya and and civil society groups working on transparency related Tripura issues, there is no denying the fact that the order lacks any form of legal reasoning. Fortunately, though this judgment, Three of the High Courts Madras, Sikkim and do not mention the rate of Uttarakhand by implication, reverses a decision of the Chhattisgarh High photocopying per page. Court which had imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the applicant for challenging a provision of the Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Three of the High Courts have Orissa High Court charges Rs. Secretariat Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and other problematic charges 2 per 180 words for copies of Costs) Rules, 2011, requesting that the cost of application be information. requires 48 reduced from Rs. 300 to Rs. 15. applicants to send self- addressed stamped envelopes Notwithstanding the sparse legal reasoning in the Supreme along with the RTI application. Court’s order, most High Courts have complied with the requires an applicant to send a Supreme Court’s order and there is currently no High Court lumpsum amount of Rs. 100 that charges more than Rs. 50 as the fee for filing an RTI in addition to application fee application. However, even this amount of Rs. 50 (as filing when requesting copies of any fee) and Rs. 5 (document fee), is still more expensive than documents. the fee of Rs. 10 and Rs. 2 charged by the Government of India and the Supreme Court of India.49 As of today, the High Scoring: A score of 10 points was deducted for C2, if the Courts of Allahabad, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, application fee in the RTI Rules of the High Court was more than Meghalaya and Rajasthan charge more than Rs. 10 for filing Rs. 10. If the RTI Rules of the High Court charged Rs. 10 no points an RTI application. Additionally, the High Courts of Allahabad, were deducted. A score of 5 points was deducted if there were any Chhattisgarh, Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya additional requirements in the rules like sending the application Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura charge more than Rs. along with a self-addressed envelope which is stamped with 2 for providing photocopies of documents. Orissa charges Rs. adequate postage. For C3, 10 points were deducted if the RTI 2 per 180 words, which is a strange standard of measurement Rules of the High Court charged more than Rs. 2 per page or if in an age where documents are photocopied. The High Courts they had not specified a cost per page of photocopying. of Madras, Sikkim and Uttarakhand do not even mention the rate of photocopying per page. Criterion C4: Do the RTI Rules of the High Court charge for inspecting information for the first hour and is the The Bombay High Court has a problematic clause requiring cost of inspecting files for subsequent hours, more than applicants to send self-addressed stamped envelopes along Rs. 5 per hour? with the RTI application. The Madras High Court also has a Apart from the right to file applications seeking information problematic clause, where apart from paying Rs. 10 as the fee from public authorities, the RTI Act also recognises the right for an RTI application, an applicant is also required to send a of citizens to inspect files of different public authorities. This lumpsum amount of Rs. 100 when requesting copies of any right to inspect can be traced to the definition of right to information under the Act. The RTI rules of the Government

47 Text of Writ Petition in Common Cause v. High Court of Allahabad W.P (Civil) No. 194 of 2012 available at para 10 accessed 17 July 2019 48 Dinesh Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh MANU/CG/0317/2017. 49 The Supreme Court charges Rs. 10 per RTI application accessed 17 July 2019.

19 WWW.LIVELAW.IN of India allow applicants to inspect files for free for a period did not recognise postal orders as a mode of payment but of 1 hour. A fee of Rs. 5 is charged for every subsequent hour. subsequently, the government issued a circular instructing all Our survey of the RTI Rules of the High Courts indicated that PIOs to accept postal orders as a mode of payment.50 The new several High Courts were charging for even the first hour. For GOI RTI Rules introduced in 2012 formally recognised postal example, the was charging as high as orders as a mode of payment.51 Rs. 50 for every hour or part thereof as cost of for inspection We evaluated the RTI Rules of all High Courts to determine which includes charging for the first hour. The High Courts at the mode of payments that were allowed in comparison to the Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, RTI Rules of the GOI, and scored the same on the Convenience Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana and Index. While several High Courts did recognise convenient Uttarakhand prescribed fees of more than Rs. 5 per hour as modes of payments like postal orders, the RTI Rules of the the cost for inspection. The other High Courts at Allahabad, High Courts of Allahabad, Chhattisgarh, Gauhati, Gujarat, Calcutta, Gauhati, Gujarat, Madras, Manipur, Meghalaya, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa and Tripura, were silent on the aspect of inspection fees. Rajasthan and Sikkim, did not recognise postal orders as a mode The lack of mention of any fees in the rules for inspections, are of payment. The RTI Rules of High Courts of Chhattisgarh and troublesome from a convenience perspective because of the Jharkhand, prescribe only court fee stamps as the relevant lack of certainty for citizens regarding their rights. Similarly, mode of payment. Not only are court fee stamps different in high costs are problematic because it makes it more expensive each state, they are usually available at fewer locations than for citizens to enforce their rights. postal orders which are available in all post offices across the country. There are also courts like the Gujarat High Court whose RTI Rules do not mention any mode of payment thereby Nine of the High Courts Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, prescribe fees of more than Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, increasing the uncertainty for RTI applicants. Rs. 5 per hour as the cost for Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, inspection Rajasthan, Telangana and The RTI Rules of High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttarakhand Madras, Telangana, Tripura and Uttarakhand which recognised postal orders as a valid mode of payment, did not offer all of Nine of the High Courts Allahabad, Calcutta, Gauhati, were silent on the aspect of Gujarat, Madras, Manipur, the other modes of payment that were recognised under the inspection fees Meghalaya, Orissa and Tripura Government of India’s RTI Rules, 2012.

The last limb of analysis under this criterion was whether the Scoring: 10 points were deducted, if an inspection fee was RTI Rules of the High Courts prescribed online methods of charged for the first hour or if for every subsequent hour, a sum payments. This was included in the analysis because the GOI more than Rs. 5 was charged or if the rules were completely silent RTI Rules, 2012 also allow payments to be made by electronic on the cost of inspection. No points were deducted if the first means to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. hour of inspection was free and if the cost of inspection for every Unfortunately, none of the High Courts have prescribed an subsequent hour was Rs. 5. online mechanism of payments. Only the Madhya Pradesh High Court had an online portal to file and pay for RTI applications. Criterion C5: Do the RTI Rules of the High Court However, it did not work the few times we tried using it. recognise the same modes of payment as the Government of India RTI Rules, 2012? Eleven of the High Courts did Allahabad, Chhattisgarh, The mode in which payments are allowed under the RTI Rules not recognise postal orders as Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, of different public authorities is a critical issue that directly a mode of payment in their RTI Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, impacts the convenience with which a citizen can file an RTI Rules. Manipur, Meghalaya, application. If a public authority restricts the mode of payment Rajasthan and Sikkim of RTI fees to only cash, citizens will necessarily have to visit Six of the High Courts, in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, the public authority to make the payment. This is technically their RTI Rules, recognised Madras, Telangana, Tripura and legal but makes it highly inconvenient for citizens to file an RTI postal orders as a valid mode Uttarakhand application. On the other hand, if the public authority allows of payment but did not offer for payment to be made via postal orders, it would mean all of the remaining modes of payment as the Government of that the citizen can purchase the postal orders from any post India’s RTI Rules, 2012 office and make the payment through post thereby saving the citizen the time and trouble of travelling to the office of the public authority. The GOI’s RTI Rules, 2005 originally

50 Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No.F. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007 ac- cessed 16 July 2019. Also see guidelines under No. 1/4/2008-IR dated 25 April 2008 p 24 < http://andssw1.and.nic.in/rti/pdf/om_public.pdf> accessed 16 July 2019. 51 Rule 6(b) of the Right To Information Rules, 2012.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 20 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Scoring: A score of 10 points was deducted for the High Courts Two of the High Courts only Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand prescribe court fee stamps as which did not clearly mention the documentation that is required a valid mode of payment for to be produced by a citizen to establish BPL status. application fee We have illustrated the criteria wise scores obtained by all None of the High Courts NA the High Courts under the convenience index in ‘Figure 2’. A prescribe online methods of payments in their RTI Rules. key detailing all the criteria under which the scores have been awarded is provided in the next page.

Scoring: A score of 10 points was deducted if the RTI Rules of the High Courts excluded instruments like postal orders, banker’s cheques and demand drafts or an online payment mechanism. All these modes of payment recognised in the Government of India’s rules.

Criterion C6: Do the RTI Rules of the High Courts describe the documentation required to be provided by below poverty line applicants in order to qualify for a fee and cost waiver under the RTI Act?

The last factor evaluated for the purpose of the convenience index was whether the RTI Rules of High Courts provided citizens living below the poverty line (BPL) with the information about the documentation they are required to provide before the High Court in order to avail their right, under Section 7, to avail of information without having to pay any fee. This provision states that the status of BPL citizens should be as determined by the appropriate government. There is no legal requirement for the RTI Rules of a public authority to specifically mention the documentation required to be submitted by the RTI applicant. However, it would help BPL applicants if the RTI Rules do mention the requirements because there are multiple identity documents issued by state governments to BPL citizens including a special BPL card or a . The Government of India’s RTI Rules requires a BPL applicant to provide a copy of the certificate issued by the appropriate government in order to file an RTI application without payment of any fee. The High Courts at Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madras, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan and Telangana are entirely silent on this aspect in their RTI Rules making it difficult for BPL citizens to negotiate their rights with the bureaucracy at the High Courts. We therefore evaluated all the rules of the High Courts on this aspect and scored them on the convenience index.

Fifteen of the High Courts are Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, silent on certification criterion Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, for BPL applications in their Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, RTI Rules Karnataka, Madras, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan and Telangana

21 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Key for the Detailed Convenience Index (Figure 2)

Criteria Points

C1 Are the RTI Rules available in the local language on the •0 if the Rules are available and published on the website websiteAre the RTIof the Rules High available Court? in the local language on the -5•• if0 onlyif the the Rules amendment are available or rules, and published either, are on available the website website of the High Court? -10•• if-5 neither if only theare amendmentavailable or rules, either, are available • -10 if neither are available C2 Do the RTI Rules of the High Court charge more than -10• if it is more than Rs. 10 Rs.Do 10the as RTI the Rules fee of of the High a RTI Court Application? charge more than -5•• if- 10there if it are is more additional than Rs. requirements 10 like self addressed Rs. 10 as the fee of filing a RTI Application? • stamped-5 if there e narevelope additional requirements like self addressed •0 ifstamped it is Rs. 10envelope • 0 if it is Rs. 10 C3 Do the RTI Rules of the High Court charge more than -10• if it is more than Rs. 2 or not Do the RTI Rules of the High Court charge more than • - 10 if it is more than Rs. 2 or not specified Rs. 2 per page as the cost of providing photocopies of •0 if it is Rs. 2 documentsRs. 2 per page in response as the cost to ofan providing RTI Application? photocopies of • 0 if it is Rs. 2 documents in response to an RTI Application? C4 Do the RTI Rules of the High Court charge for -10• if the cost imposed is more than Rs. 5 per hour, inspectingDo the RTI information Rules of the for High the Court hour charge and for is the cost • cost- 10 isif theimposed payment for the methods first hour exclude or if eitherthe rules cash, are Indian ofinspecting inspecting information for subsequent for the first hours, hour more and is than the Rs.cost silentPostal Orders, bankers’ cheques, demand drafts or other 5of per inspecting hour? files for subsequent hours, more than Rs. •0 ifelectronic less than methodsor equal toof Rs.payment 5 per hour with no cost 5 per hour? • imposed0 if all the for methods the first of hour payments provided by the Government of India RTIs, 2012 are accepted

C5 Do the RTI Rules of the High Court recognise the same -10• if the payment methods exclude IPOs, bankers modesDo the of RTI pa Rulesyment of as the the High Gov Courternment recognise of India the RTI same • cheque/DD- 10 if a word or limit other is prescribedelectronic methods of payment Rules,modes 2012? of payment as the Government of India RTI •0 if-10 IPOs, if a subjectbankers matter cheque/DD limit is are prescribed accepted as methods Rules, 2012? • of-10 payment if there isof a RTI limit application on the number along ofwith questions electronic • methods0 if none haveof payment been prescribed

Do the RTI Rules of the High Courts describe the • 0 if the criteria is clearly mentioned C6 Do the RTI Rules of the High Courts describe the •0 if the criteria is clearly mentioned documentation required to be provided by below • -10 if the rules are silent or if no criteria is mentioned documentation required to be provided by below -10• if the rules are silent or if no criteria is mentioned poverty line applicants in order to qualify for a fee and poverty line applicants in order to qualify for a fee and cost waiver under the RTI Act? cost waiver under the RTI Act?

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 22 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Figure 2: Detailed Convenience Index

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Criteria Points Patna 1 -10 -10 C1 Are the RTI Rules available in the local language on the •0 if the Rules are available and published on the website website of the High Court? -5• if only the amendment or rules, either, are available Delhi 2 -10 -10 -20 -10• if neither are available Kerala C2 Do the RTI Rules of the High Court charge more than -10• if it is more than Rs. 10 2 -10 -10 -20 Rs. 10 as the fee of a RTI Application? -5• if there are additional requirements like self addressed stamped envelope Bombay 4 -10 -5 -10 -25 •0 if it is Rs. 10

Himachal Pradesh 5 -10 -10 -10 -30 C3 Do the RTI Rules of the High Court charge more than -10• if it is more than Rs. 2 or not Rs. 2 per page as the cost of providing photocopies of •0 if it is Rs. 2 documents in response to an RTI Application? Punjab & Haryana 5 -10 -10 -10 -30

C4 Do the RTI Rules of the High Court charge for -10• if the cost imposed is more than Rs. 5 per hour, Sikkim 5 -10 -10 -10 -30 inspecting information for the hour and is the cost cost is imposed for the first hour or if the rules are of inspecting for subsequent hours, more than Rs. silent 5 per hour? •0 if less than or equal to Rs. 5 per hour with no cost Andhra Pradesh 8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -40 imposed for the first hour Calcutta 8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -40 C5 Do the RTI Rules of the High Court recognise the same -10• if the payment methods exclude IPOs, bankers modes of payment as the Government of India RTI cheque/DD or other electronic methods of payment Telangana -10 -10 -10 -10 -40 Rules, 2012? 0 if IPOs, bankers cheque/DD are accepted as methods 8 of payment of RTI application along with electronic methods of payment Tripura 8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -40

C6 Do the RTI Rules of the High Courts describe the •0 if the criteria is clearly mentioned Uttarakhand 8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -40 documentation required to be provided by below -10• if the rules are silent or if no criteria is mentioned poverty line applicants in order to qualify for a fee and cost waiver under the RTI Act? Gauhati 13 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -50

Jharkhand 13 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -50

Karnataka 13 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -50

Madhya Pradesh 13 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -50

Manipur 13 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -50

Orissa 13 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -50

Rajasthan 13 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -50

Allahabad 20 -5 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -55

Gujarat 21 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -60

Madras 21 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -60

Meghalaya 21 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -60

Chhattisgarh 24 -10 -15 -10 -10 -10 -10 -65 Ranks Scores

Points Deducted -5 -10 -15

23 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

The Practice Index – How did the Public III Information Officers respond to RTI Applications?

The best written laws can be wrecked by reluctant bureaucrats Criterion P1: Has the RTI application been replied to by tasked with implementing the law in practice. Therefore, apart the High Court? from evaluating the RTI Rules drafted by High Courts, we The first and most important criterion in this index is whether also thought it necessary to evaluate the manner in which the the RTI application was even responded to by the High Court, Public Information Officers at these High Courts respond to even if the reply was a rejection. High Courts that did not reply RTI applications. to the RTI applications, were penalised on the index. Most of the High Courts scored well on this index. Only the High Courts For the purposes of this report, we decided to evaluate the of Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Madras, Patna and Telangana were responses of all High Courts to 3 sets of RTI applications that penalised for not replying to at least 1 of the 3 RTI applications. we had filed with each of the High Courts for the purpose of Only the High Court at Chhattisgarh, was penalised for not collecting information for our research work on other issues; responding to 2 RTI applications. 2 out 3 sets of applications were filed in November 2018 and the third set was filed in April 2019. Of these 3 sets, the first Scoring: For High Courts that did not respond to an RTI application, pertained to the implementation of the Commercial Courts a total of 30 points were deducted. No points were deducted for Act [attached as ‘annexure A’], the second pertained to the High Courts that responded to our RTI applications even if the budget outlays of the High Court [attached as ‘annexure B’] reply was in effect a rejection of our request for information. and the third and final set of RTIs requested all High Courts to provide copies of their audit report [attached as ‘annexure Criterion P2: Did the High Court respond to the RTI C’]. We evaluated all the responses received from the High application within 40 days? Courts and scored them on certain specific criteria. The replies received before the 1st of May 2019 were evaluated for the As per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, PIOs are required to respond purposes of this index. Of the 9 criteria that formed the basis to all RTI applications within a time-span of 30 days from the of this index, 4 are based on legal requirements laid out under receipt of the RTI application. This timeline has been reiterated the RTI Act and 5 are subjective criteria that were important in in multiple cases including in context of High Courts. In the our opinion to ensure meaningful compliance with the RTI Act. case of Asharfilal Kulshreshtha v CPIO Allahabad High Court52 The score for each High Court, for each criterion, is the average the CIC reminded the Allahabad High Court that it needed score of responses to all 3 RTI applications. The rationale for to dispose the RTI applications in a timely fashion without each criterion is explained below in greater detail. breaching statutory timelines. It requested the High Court to revisit its procedures for disposing RTI application to remove With regard to scoring in this index, we deducted points if bottlenecks and streamline procedures. A DoPT circular in mandatory requirements under the RTI Act or High Court its guidelines has also required that applications be disposed Rules have not been complied with by the High Court while within 30 days of the receipt of the request.53 However as we responding to our RTI applications. We have awarded points discovered not all High Courts were responding within the 30 only for those criteria where the High Court has made it easier days deadline. for RTI applicants to access the information despite no legal requirement to do so under the law. For the purpose of this index, we took the date on which we dispatched our RTI application, by post, as the relevant date. The Andhra Pradesh High Court was not evaluated for this This date was chosen, to keep the dates uniform between all index because we had filed the applications with the High the High Courts, since not all High Courts have noted the dates Court of Hyderabad before it was bifurcated into the Andhra on which the application was received by them in their reply. In Pradesh High Court and the Telangana High Court. We order to account for any possible delays in the postal system received the responses from the latter High Court. we have chosen 40 days instead of 30 days as the benchmark to measure the response time.

52 [2012] CIC 14803. 53 Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 1/4/2008-IR dated 25 April 2008 p 12 accessed 16 July 2019.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 24 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Of the 23 High Courts that were evaluated, most replied to Criterion P5: If information was provided, was it a the RTI applications within 40 days. However, the High Courts question wise reply? at Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras, Patna, Rajasthan, Sikkim, In cases, where information was provided in response to Telangana and Tripura delayed their responses to at least 1 of multiple questions that were posed in a single RTI application, our RTI applications. we evaluated whether it was possible to match the responses to individual questions. We decided to evaluate this particular Scoring: A score of 20 points was deducted for High Courts whose criterion because we discovered that some High Courts would response reached us after 40 days from the date of filing the RTI side-step specific questions in our RTI applications by providing application. a consolidated response to multiple questions thereby making it difficult for us to understand the replies. We faced this issue Criterion P3: Was the RTI application replied to in the with 2 sets of RTI applications. The 3rd set had asked only 1 preferred method of communication by the High Court? question and hence was not considered while evaluating this As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided in particular criterion. response to an RTI application should ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it disproportionately Only, the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Gauhati, Gujarat, diverts the resources of the public authority or would be Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Patna, Punjab & detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in Haryana and Sikkim provided question-wise replies to the question. In all our RTI applications filed with the High Courts questions in our RTI applications. Uttarakhand provided a it was clearly indicated that any response should be sent via question wise reply to only 1 out of our 2 applications that email rather than post. contained multiple questions. Those applications that were rejected for various reason, were marked NA. Of all the High Courts from whom we sought replies via email, only the High Court at Punjab & Haryana responded via email. Scoring: A score of 10 points was awarded if the response was The remaining High Courts replied to us by post. individually mapped to each question in the RTI application. No points were deducted if a High Court did not provide a question Scoring: If the response was received via email as requested, no wise reply. Similarly, no points were deducted if the RTI application points were deducted. However, if the response was received via was rejected on other grounds. post 10 points were deducted on the index. Criterion P6: If information was provided by the High Criterion P4: Did the High Court provide details of the Court, was it to the satisfaction of the applicant? First Appellate Authority in its reply? This criterion is meant to evaluate the replies where some As per Section 7(8)(iii) of the RTI Act, the response of a PIO to information was provided in response to our RTI applications. an RTI application must contain the particulars of the Appellate The scoring for this criterion was based on whether the Authority under the RTI Act if the request for information is Research Fellow who drafted the RTI application was being rejected. Additionally, Section 7(3)(b) of the RTI Act satisfied with the information provided by the High Court in requires that all replies to applications, where information its response. We did not however, penalise those responses, is being provided, also contain the details of the appellate which although unsatisfactory to the Research Fellow, were authority. This is to facilitate the filing of an appeal under the still adequately reasoned in law and fact. If an application was RTI Act in case an applicant disagrees with the reply of the PIO rejected it was not evaluated under this head. Rejections have or the costs as calculated by the PIO. For the purposes of our been evaluated under a different head in the same index. index we consider this requirement of disclosing the appellate authority to be mandatory in all cases and not merely for The High Courts at Bombay, Delhi, Gauhati, Gujarat, Himachal responses where request for information was rejected. Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madras, Manipur, Meghalaya, Patna, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, The High Courts at Calcutta, Gauhati, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, Tripura and Uttarakhand gave satisfactory replies Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Meghalaya, Orissa, to at least 1 of the 3 RTI applications. The High Courts at Sikkim and Tripura failed to provide details of the first Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Sikkim and Gauhati were the best appellate authority in all their responses. Manipur and Patna performers in this category. failed to provide the details of the Appellate Authority in 1 of the replies that we received. The High Court of Calcutta gave the least satisfactory replies while several other High Courts simply rejected our Scoring: If the response provided by the High Court did not applications on various grounds. include the particulars of the Appellate Authority, 10 points were deducted against this criterion in the index.

25 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Scoring: For this criterion we used a sliding scale of a maximum rejected by a High Court, we examined the rule or precedent 30 points with the responses that most adequately replied to the cited by the High Court to justify its rejection and if we found queries being awarded the maximum points. The least satisfactory the rule or precedent to be rightly applied, we did not deduct replies were given a zero. Those applications that were rejected any points even if the rule, as per our assessment, was ultra vires for various reason, were marked NA. the parent statute. If, however, a rule or precedent was wrongly applied in our opinion, we deducted points for the High Court. Criterion P7: If information was provided by the For example, the PIO of the Telangana High Court rejected High Court, what is the time frame within which the our request for information regarding the budget of the High documents are supplied by the High Court after the Court by citing a judgment of the Madras High Court in the submission of document fee? case of The Registrar General v. K. Elango.54 In this judgment, the Madras High Court had held that the Registries of High Court As per Section 7 of the RTI Act, a request for information were not required to share “administrative letters and internal must be disposed within 30 days of receiving the application. deliberations” under the RTI Act. However the application of In cases where the PIO is required to inform the citizen of a this precedent by the PIO of the Telangana High Court to deny document fee for photocopying, the period between the us budgeting information was clearly a mala-fide rejection intimation of this amount to the citizen and the payment being because not only does budgeting information not fall within made by the citizen is to be excluded from calculating the 30 this exception but also because the PIO of the Madras High days period within which applications are to be responded to Court (which had delivered the Elango judgment) provided by the PIO. For the purposes of this index we formulated what us with the very same information regarding its budget, in we considered were reasonable timelines for High Courts to response to the same questions in an RTI application. Another have replied with copies of documents requested after the example of mala-fide rejection was in the case of the Orissa submission of document fee. We used 21 days as the first High Court which rejected 2 of the 3 RTI applications citing a benchmark and 31 days as the second benchmark with both provision from its RTI Rules despite the cited provision having dates being calculated from the date on which we dispatched been repealed. While the First Appellate Authority ruled in our the document fee. favour in this case, we still deducted the maximum permissible points for the Orissa High Court because the point of this index The High Courts at Bombay, Delhi, Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, was to evaluate the response of PIOs. Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Patna, Rajasthan, Tripura and Uttarakhand performed the best in this category. The High Courts which performed very poorly in this category because they rejected at least 1 of our RTI applications on Scoring: High Courts that provided information in less than 21 grounds that we considered mala-fide were the High Courts of days from payment of the document fee were awarded 20 points, Bombay, Chhattisgarh, Madras, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana and which is the highest for this criterion. High Courts that provided us Telangana. information between 21 and 31 days from the date of dispatch of document fee were given 10 points. No points were given for High Scoring: If the application was rejected on the basis of rules or the Courts that took more than 31 days. High Courts that declined to provisions of the RTI Act, no points were deducted for the High provide us with any information were marked as NA. Court, even if the rule was ultra vires the RTI Act in our opinion. However, if the application was rejected on mala-fide grounds, a Criterion P8: Was the rejection of the RTI application total of 30 points were deducted for the High Court. by the High Court on malafide grounds?

Requests for information under the RTI Act can legitimately Criterion P9: Were the RTI applications, which were be rejected for various reasons ranging from procedural transferred to the High Courts by the Department issues such as non-payment of fees, to substantive grounds of Justice replied to by the High Court or rejected on such as those listed in Section 8 of the RTI Act. Very often, account of non-payment of fee or for other reasons? public authorities who are very reluctant to share information As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does under the RTI Act will attempt very creative interpretations of not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to be Section 8 to reject RTI application. We noticed such behaviour transferred to the relevant public authority within a period of 5 even with High Courts and we thought it was necessary to days. It is the general practise within the Central Government capture this behaviour on the index. that an RTI applicant does not have to repay the RTI fees, when an application is being transferred. The High Courts, however Where our RTI applications were rejected by High Courts, we quite often request the RTI fee to be paid once again for even evaluated their supporting grounds against Section 8 of the RTI the RTI applications which they received on transfer. This is Act and the High Court Rules. If a request for information was not keeping with the practice or convention of the law. We

54 The Registrar General v. K. Elango (2013) 5 Mad LJ 134.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 26 WWW.LIVELAW.IN evaluated whether the High Courts were asking for repayment of the RTI fees and also whether High Courts were responding to the RTI applications transferred to them by other public authorities like the Department of Justice (DoJ), Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India.

For the purpose of only this one criterion, we used 2 sets of RTI applications which are different from the sets used for the other criteria in this index. These 2 sets were originally filed with the DoJ, requesting for information that we believed would be in the possession of the DoJ. The first application inquired whether the High Courts were sending DoJ annual reports as required under Section 25(2) of the RTI Act [attached as ‘annexure D’]. The second application concerned the court developments plans that were prepared by the High Courts and submitted to the DoJ [attached as ‘annexure E’]. The DoJ transferred both applications to the High Courts on the grounds that they lacked the relevant information and the High Courts would be better equipped to provide the requested information. Most of the High Courts did not respond to the transferred applications in the manner required under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Some of the High Courts did not reply to the transferred RTI applications, while others demanded payment of RTI fees once again.

The High Courts at Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Gauhati, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madras, Meghalaya, Orissa, Patna, Tripura were the best performing courts in this category.

Scoring: For High Courts that did not provide information in response to a transferred RTI Applications because of the non- payment of RTI fee, we deducted 20 points. Similarly, if a High Court did not respond to an RTI application that was transferred to it by the DoJ we deducted 20 points.

Figure 3 illustrates the scores obtained by the High Court under the practice index. For every High Court, there are 3 columns of scores under each criteria. These are the scores obtained by the High Court for each of the 3 RTI applications that were filed. The applications are annexed to this report as annexure A, B and C respectively.

Some criteria do not apply to the High Court and are hence marked as not applicable (NA). For example, since RTI application number 2 did not have multiple questions, the scores obtained by all the High Court under criteria P5 will always be NA. Similarly, if an RTI applications has not been replied to at all, then criteria P2-P8 will not be not be applicable.

27 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Key for the detailed Practice Index (Figure 3)

Criteria Points

P1 Has the RTI application been replied to by the High -30• if there is no reply Court? •0 if the application has been replied to Has the RTI application been replied to by the High • - 30 if there is no reply P2 DidCourt? the High Court respond to the RTI application •0• if0 <40if the d aapplicationys has been replied to within 40 days? -20• if >40 days Did the High Court respond to the RTI application NA•• if0 thereif <40 was days no reply or if the application was rejected within 40 days? • -20 if >40 days • NA if there was no reply or if the application was rejected P3 Was the RTI application replied to in the preferred -10• if the reply was via post method of communication by the High Court? •0 if the reply was via e-mail Was the RTI application replied to in the preferred NA•• if-10 there if the was reply no replywas via or postif the application was rejected method of communication by the High Court? • 0 if the reply was via e-mail P4 Did the High Court provide details of the First -10•• ifNA the if designationthere was no or reply name or of if thethe authorityapplication was was not rejected Appellate Authority in its reply? provided Did the High Court provide details of the First •0• if- 10details if the h adesignationve been clearly or name provided of the authority was not Appellate Authority in its reply? NA• ifprovided there was no reply or if the application was rejected • 0 if details have been clearly provided P5 If information was provided, was it a question wise 10•• ifNA the if replythere was was question no reply wiseor if the application was rejected reply? •0 if the reply was not question wise If information was provided, was it a question wise NA•• if10 there if the was reply a single was question question wise reply? • 0 if the reply was not question wise P6 If information was provided by the High Court, was it 0-30•• ThisNA if is there a sliding was scale a single from question 0 (not satifactory at all) to 30 to the satisfaction of the applicant? (to the complete satisfaction of the applicant) If information was provided by the High Court, was it NA•• NAThis if is there a sliding was scaleno reply from or 0 if (not the applicationsatifactory atwas all) rejected to 30 to the satisfaction of the applicant? (to the complete satisfaction of the applicant) P7 If information was provided by the High Court, what 20•• ifNA documents if there was are no supplied reply or in if <21 the dapplicationays (from date was ofrejected is the time frame within which the documents are dispatch of document fee) or if documents are supplied suppliedIf information by the was High provided Court after by the the High submission Court, what of • with20 if thedocuments reply are supplied in <21 days (from date of documentis the time fee? frame within which the documents are 10• ifdispatch documents of document are supplied fee) between or if documents 21 - 31 aredays supplied (from supplied by the High Court after the submission of datewith ofthe dispatch first reply of document fee) document fee? •0• if10 documents if documents are aresupplied supplied >31 between days (from 21 date- 31 daysof (from dispatchdate of dispatch of document of document fee) fee) NA•• if0 noif documents documents are were supplied provided, >31 there days (fromwas no date reply of or ifdispatch the application of document was rejected fee) • NA if no documents were provided, there was no reply or P8 Was the rejection of the RTI application by the High -30• forif thea n yapplication ground was rejectedfor rejection Court on grounds? •0 for when rejection is based on rule compliance (even if Was the rejection of the RTI application by the High • the-30 rule for any is ult malafidera vires the ground RTI Act) for rejection Court on malafide grounds? • 0 for when rejection is based on rule compliance (even if P9 Were the RTI applications, which were transferred to -20• ifthe rejected rule is onultra account vires the of RTInon Act) payment of fee, non- the High Courts by the Department of Justice replied compliance with the form or if the application was not toWere by the the High RTI applications,Court or rejected which on were account transferred of non- to • replied- 20 if rejected to at all on account of non payment of fee, non- ptheayment High ofCourts fee or by for the other Department reasons? of Justice replied •0 ifcompliance non-payment with of the RTI form fee to or the if the High application Court or wasnon- not to by the High Court or rejected on account of non- compliancereplied to at with all the form is not a ground for refusal of payment of fee or for other reasons? • information 0 if non-payment of RTI fee to the High Court or non- compliance with the form is not a ground for refusal of information

Average Score

Line depicting average score Rank 25 +30 positive scores Court Name 14 0 40 negative scores

NA -30 Total Score Individual Scores for the RTI Applications

A B C

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 28 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Figure 3: Detailed Practice Index

Criteria Points P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 20 0 0 0 10 30 NA 0 P1 Has the RTI application been replied to by the High -30• if there is no reply Delhi 1 50 Court? •0 if the application has been replied to -10 10 30 20 Karnataka 0 0 0 NA 0 Did the High Court respond to the RTI application •0 if <40 days 1 50 P2 -10 within 40 days? -20• if >40 days 20 0 0 0 10 30 NA 0 NA• if there was no reply or if the application was rejected Kerala 1 50 -10 10 30 20 P3 Was the RTI application replied to in the preferred -10• if the reply was via post Gauhati 0 0 NA 0 0 4 40 method of communication by the High Court? • if the reply was via e-mail -10 -10 NA• if there was no reply or if the application was rejected 20 0 0 0 10 27 NA Gujarat 5 27 -10 Did the High Court provide details of the First -10• if the designation or name of the authority was not -20 P4 20 Appellate Authority in its reply? provided 0 0 0 5 25 NA •0 if details have been clearly provided Uttarakhand 6 20 -10 NA• if there was no reply or if the application was rejected -20 15 20 0 0 NA NA 0 Meghalaya 7 15 P5 If information was provided, was it a question wise 10• if the reply was question wise -10 -10 22 20 reply? •0 if the reply was not question wise 0 0 NA 0 NA• if there was a single question Tripura 7 15 -7 -10 -10 20 20 10 If information was provided by the High Court, was it 0-30• This is a sliding scale from 0 (not satifactory at all) to 30 0 0 NA P6 Manipur 9 13 to the satisfaction of the applicant? (to the complete satisfaction of the applicant) -10 -7 -20 NA• NA if there was no reply or if the application was rejected 13 0 10 27 NA Sikkim 9 13 P7 If information was provided by the High Court, what 20• if documents are supplied in <21 days (from date of -7 -10 -10 -10 17 15 is the time frame within which the documents are dispatch of document fee) or if documents are supplied 0 0 0 0 Himachal Pradesh NA supplied by the High Court after the submission of with the reply 11 12 -10 -10 document fee? 10• if documents are supplied between 21 - 31 days (from 20 20 0 0 0 10 0 date of dispatch of document fee) Bombay 12 10 •0 if documents are supplied >31 days (from date of -10 -30 dispatch of document fee) 20 20 0 0 10 0 NA• if no documents were provided, there was no reply or Jharkhand 12 10 -10 if the application was rejected -10 -20 20 20 0 0 NA 0 Rajasthan 14 3 P8 Was the rejection of the RTI application by the High -30• for a ny ground for rejection -10 -7 -20 Court on grounds? •0 for when rejection is based on rule compliance (even if 20 10 5 NA 0 the rule is ultra vires the RTI Act) Patna 15 0 -10 -10 -10 -5 15 P9 Were the RTI applications, which were transferred to -20• if rejected on account of non payment of fee, non- 0 0 0 0 10 25 the High Courts by the Department of Justice replied compliance with the form or if the application was not Punjab & Haryana 15 0 -30 to by the High Court or rejected on account of non- replied to at all -20 0 30 10 0 payment of fee or for other reasons? •0 if non-payment of RTI fee to the High Court or non- Madras 17 -30 compliance with the form is not a ground for refusal of -10 -10 -10 -10 -30 information 0 0 NA NA NA 0 Allahabad 18 -37 -7 -10 -20 0 0 NA NA NA 0 Madhya Pradesh 19 -40 Average Score -10 -10 -20 0 0 NA NA 0 Line depicting average score Calcutta Rank 20 -50 -10 -20 -10 -10 25 +30 0 0 NA NA NA 0 Orissa 20 -50 positive scores -10 -10 -30 40 Court Name 14 0 0 0 10 NA negative scores Telangana 22 -60 -10 -10 -10 -30 -10

NA -30 0 0 NA NA NA Total Score Chhattisgarh 23 -20 -80 -10 Individual Scores for the RTI Applications -30 -20

A B C

29 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Proactive Disclosure of Information under Section IV 4 of the RTI Act by the High Courts

Apart from providing citizens with the right to request for which relates to securing transparency and accountability information, the RTI Act also creates a mandate for public in the working of public authorities and in discouraging authorities to proactively disclose certain categories of corruption.” information to the public such as the particulars of the organisation, the budget allocations to it, names and Similar pronouncements have been made by some High Courts. designations of Public Information Officers (PIOs) etc. In one judgment, the Delhi High Court declared that Section 4 As explained by the CIC in one of its decisions, “An open mandated the publication of information by public authorities government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, on the internet, in the following words:59 can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.”55 “The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or This duty which is contained in Section 4 of the RTI Act is communicating the information to the public through usually fulfilled by publishing the information on the website notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, of the public authority. The intention behind this provision, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear as explained by the CIC in one of its orders, is to minimize the from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the need for citizens to use the RTI Act to request for information. information, which a public authority is obliged to publish In pertinent part, the CIC held the following: under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet.” “The importance of suo-moto disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) can hardly be over-emphasized as maximisation of The Government of India’s interpretation of Section 4 is such disclosures would result in minimisation of recourse similar and necessarily requires all its departments to disclose to the provisions of section 6(1) of the Act and thereby save the information on its websites. The Ministry of Personnel, valuable time, energy and resources of the stakeholders Public Grievances and Pensions of the Government of India, viz, the Public Authorities and the information seekers”.56 in an office memorandum interpreted Section 4 of the RTI Act as requiring all public authorities to have their records This point has been reiterated by civil society organisations who computerised and connected through a network that can be have repeatedly argued that the number of RTI applications accessed from across the country. The same memorandum filed with public authorities would fall significantly if public reminded public authorities that they were required to publish authorities made proper disclosures under Section 4 of the the information mentioned in Section 4(1)(b) within a period RTI Act.57 of 120 days and to ensure compliance without any further delay.60 Over the years, there have been several judicial pronouncements and administrative orders, reminding public These pronouncements from the Supreme Court, High Courts authorities of the importance of proactive disclosure under and Government of India indicate a consensus amongst the Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. In one such judgment from highest rungs of the judiciary and government regarding 201158, the Supreme Court stated the following: the obligations of public authorities under Section 4(1)(b), including on the requirement to make such information available on the internet. Notwithstanding this consensus, “The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and the compliance with Section 4 has been rather weak. A study all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary of mandatory disclosures by public authorities, commissioned information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act by the CIC, examined the websites of 838 public authorities

55 Navdeep Gupta v. Director General of Income Tax CIC/DGITE/C/2017/603578-BJ. 56 Parminder Kaur vs. Vigilance Department Central Information Commission, CIC/WB/C/2008/00115/LS para 19; 57 Johri and Bhardwaj (n 17) 88. 58 CBSE and Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497. 59 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2058. 60 Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Office Memorandum, No. 1/18/2007 (September 2007) accessed 3 October 2019.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 30 WWW.LIVELAW.IN before coming to the conclusion that several of the public did not “order” the publication of information because it was authorities audited for the purposes of the study were not dealing with a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act making satisfactory disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI and not an appeal under Section 19. Act.61 A different study by the NCPRI in October 2015 of disclosures made by the different ’s Offices As per Section 18, the CIC can only order an inquiry and cannot across the states also revealed poor compliance with Section pass an order mandating disclosure of information. An order 4 of the RTI Act.62 for disclosure, however, can be passed by the CIC only under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act while hearing appeals. This is It is thus not surprising that there are a fair number of because Section 19(8) allows the Information Commissions to complaints/appeals filed before the CIC regarding the non- take any such steps “as may be necessary to secure compliance implementation of Section 4 by different public authorities. with the provisions” of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court has In all these cases, the CIC has repeatedly highlighted the made it clear that Section 18 and 19 serve two different importance of disclosing information under Section 4 of the RTI purposes and provide two different remedies which are not Act and has exercised its powers under Section 19(8) to order substitutable for the other.69 Therefore if the CIC is dealing several public authorities such as educational institutions63, with a complaint it is limited to ordering an inquiry or making government departments64, regulators65 and public sector a recommendation. undertakings66 to publish the disclosures mandated under Section 4(1)(b). There is little the CIC can do if these public Since the aforementioned complaints against the High authorities do not make the necessary disclosures under Courts before the CIC were disposed in 2012, there has Section 4(1)(b). The RTI Act does not vest in the Information been relatively little scrutiny of proactive disclosures by High Commissions the power to penalise PIOs who fail to implement Courts under Section 4 of the RTI Act. The only exception was a Section 4 obligations. At most, Information Commissioners study conducted by the students at the Azim Premji University can penalise PIOs for failing to reply to RTI applications in an in 2017 that examined the compliance of 9 High Courts with appropriate manner.67 the RTI Act.70 The study concluded that “…most High Courts comply with this provision very poorly.”71 When complaints were filed against 7 High Courts, in 2010, for not making the appropriate disclosures under Section 4 In this backdrop, we thought it necessary to conduct a more of the RTI Act, the CIC merely made a “recommendation”, comprehensive study regarding the extent to which all High under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, to the High Courts that Courts in India were making disclosures, required under they comply with Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.68 While 5 Section 4, on their websites. High Courts proceeded to make the necessary disclosures, the High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim are yet to make the While all the High Courts have made extraordinary strides requisite disclosures. These orders of the CIC are in contrast in making accessible their orders and judgments on their to the earlier cases where public authorities were “ordered” to websites and for no payment, the same cannot be said of the publish information under Section 4. It is possible that the CIC remaining disclosures that they are required to make under Section 4 of the RTI Act on their websites. In fact, only 15 of the

61 AN Tiwari, MM Ansari, Transparency Audit of Disclosures u/s 4 of the Right to Information Act by the Public Authorities, (Central Information Commission, 2018) accessed 3 October 2019 62 Johri and Bhardwaj (n 17) 88. 63 Rajeev Lala v. Sri Aurobindo College CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penalty-9 64 Nithyaesh Natraj v. Department of Economic Affairs CIC/DOEAF/A/2018/164195-BJ-Interim. 65 Dilip Singh Premi v. Pharmacy Council of India CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/602557-BJ+. 66 Manoj Pai v. All India Radio, CIC/AD/C/09/00049. 67 Despite Section 20 allowing for the CIC to impose penalties only in the case of denial of information and not in cases of non-publication of information under Section 4 of the RTI Act, there is at least one set of orders passed by the CIC in connected cases, where a penalty was imposed on a public authority for not making the requisite disclosures under Section 4. See Rajeev Lala v. Swami Sharddhanand College CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penalty-5, Rajeev Lala v. Sri Aurobindo College CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penalty-9, Rajeev Lala v. Aditi Mahavidyalaya CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penalty-1, Rajeev Lala v. Amar Jyoti Rehabilitation & Research Centre CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penalty-3, Rajeev Lala v. Mata Sundari College for Women CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penalty-4, Rajeev Lala v. Raj- kumari Amrit Kaur College CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penalty-7, Rajeev Lala v. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penal- ty-6. This set of orders was passed by the same Information Commissioner on the same day. The penalties imposed on these public authorities are not supported by a plain reading of Section 20. There is one view point by some academics and activists that the CIC does have power to impose penalties for non-disclosures under the doctrine of implied power but such reasoning has not been adopted by any Information Commissioners so far. See Johri and Bhardwaj (n 17) 84. 68 C.J. Karira v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Gauhati High Court, High Court of Gujarat, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand High Court, Rajasthan High Court, High Court of Allahabad, High Court of Madras, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, High Court of Sikkim CIC/WB/C/2010/900031, CIC/WB/C/2010/900032SM, CIC/ SM/C/2011/900894, CIC/SM/C/2011/901291, CIC/SM/C/2011/901292, CIC/SM/C/2011/901294, CIC/SM/C/2011/901296, CIC/SM/C/2011/901297, CIC/ SM/C/2011/901298, CIC/SM/C/2011/901301 & CIC/WB/C/2010/000575SM. 69 Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur AIR 2012 SC 864. 70 Hemrajani (n 18). 71 ibid, 23.

31 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

24 High Courts that we surveyed have made disclosures under Of the 12 heads, that we evaluated, we deemed the following Section 4, while the remaining 9 High Courts did not publish 6 heads as more important than the others because of which disclosures under Section 4 on their websites. The quality these important heads were weighed twice the value of the of disclosures made by the 15 High Courts under Section 4 lesser important heads: demonstrated a great degree of variance and we created an index in order to measure the quality of their disclosures. 1. the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions74; Nine of the High Courts did Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, not make disclosures under Manipur, Meghalaya, Patna, 2. a statement of the categories of documents that are held Section 4 of the RTI Act on Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, by it or under its control75; their websites Tripura 3. a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of 2 or more persons constituted as its A. Explaining the methodology part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other It is important for us to mention over here that we evaluated bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such a High Court only if it made a specific disclosure on its meetings are accessible for public76; website under the label of ‘RTI disclosures’ or ‘Section 4(1) 4. a directory of its officers and employees77; (b) Disclosures’ or likewise.72 If the information covered by 5. the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating Section 4(1)(b) was disclosed in a disaggregated format on the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and the website of the High Court without being compiled at one reports on disbursements made78 ; location on the website, it was not considered as an appropriate 6. the names, designations and other particulars of the disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and hence was Public Information Officers79 ; not evaluated. This is because it is a standard practice amongst most public authorities to make disclosure under Section 4(1) These heads were considered more important because (b) in a consolidated format on their websites, thereby making information under these heads is of high relevance for the the information more easily accessible to citizens. primary stakeholders of the justice system, such as litigants, advocates and employees of the High Courts who regularly Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act lists out 17 heads, under which require access to this information in the normal course of their the public authorities are obligated to make disclosures at business. The other reason we considered these heads to be regular intervals. Of these 17 heads, we found that 5 heads important is because High Courts are public institutions that either did not apply to the High Courts or were not of particular play a critical role in the administration of justice. There is a relevance to High Courts, given the administrative setup and general public interest in ensuring the transparency of such functions of High Courts. These 5 heads were hence excluded important public institutions so as to guarantee accountability from our survey.73 and prevent corruption.

The remaining 12 heads were broken down to their key The scoring for each head is represented below in brief: ingredients, that is, the essential details which should ideally be provided to constitute a good quality disclosure under that • Total score of more important heads = Sum of the total head. Each of these ingredients were scored at one point. So, a score of the ingredients x 2 High Court which has disclosed information pertaining to each • Total score of less important heads = Sum of the total of the ingredients will get the full score under that head. For score of the ingredients x 1 example, under the head “the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties”, we have identified five ingredients. The detailed breakup is available in the scoring sheet on pages A High Court which has disclosed all these five pieces of 35-37 information will be awarded a score of 5.

72 For Himachal Pradesh the disclosure was available on the website of the High Court when we undertook the evaluation exercise in April, 2019 and therefore was considered for evaluation. Thereafter, the website has been redesigned and we have not considered it for this study. 73 Right to Information Act 2005, s 4(1)(b)(iv), s 4(1)(b)(vii), s 4(1)(b)(xii), s 4(1)(b)(xiii), s 4(1)(b)(xvii); 74 Right to Information Act 2005, s 4(1)(b)(v); 75 Right to Information Act 2005, s 4(1)(b)(vi); 76 Right to Information Act 2005, s 4(1)(b)(viii); 77 Right to Information Act 2005, s 4(1)(b)(ix); 78 Right to Information Act 2005, s 4(1)(b)(xi); 79 Right to Information Act 2005, s 4(1)(b)(xv);

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 32 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Additionally, we also rated the High Courts on four ancillary The High Courts of Delhi, Kerala and Punjab & Haryana made criteria: available updated disclosures with the latest information under all the four heads. Gauhati High Court and Jharkhand High 1. Ease of finding the disclosure on the website of the High Court on the other hand had entirely outdated disclosures. Court [Easy, Moderately Difficult and Difficult]; 2. Availability in local language? [Yes / No]; (b) Lack of Information on Subordinate Courts: 3. Ease of using online services such as accessing orders and 3 heads of disclosure under Section 4(1)(b), that is rules judgments of the High Court through its website t [Easy, and regulations under its control (Section 4(1)(v)), budget Moderately Difficult and Difficult]; statements of its agencies (Section 4(1)(b)(xi)) and details of 4. Whether a detailed contact page existed on the High PIO (Section 4(1)(b)(xvi)) require the High Court to provide Courts’ website [Yes /No]? details of the subordinate courts within its administrative control. The Indian Constitution through Article 235 and These criteria were included to assess how conveniently a Article 227, vests the administrative control of the District citizen can access the disclosures and other e-services that the Courts in the judges of the High Court. These provisions High Court provides. were enacted to ensure that the executive and legislative interference is curtailed with regard to the functioning of the B. The following is the performance of District Judiciary. To realise this intention, the High Courts various High Courts on the quality of should take ownership over the role prescribed to them by the their Section 4 disclosures Constitution and publish information under these heads with regard to the District Judiciary as well. On undertaking the above survey of the Section 4 disclosures made on the websites of all the High Courts, it was found that In this regard, Allahabad, Bombay, Himachal Pradesh and the High Courts of Kerala (59 points) and Punjab & Haryana Kerala High Courts have disclosed information regarding (57 points) had made the best quality disclosures under the subordinate courts for all 3 heads. On the other hand, the High RTI Act. On the other hand, Orissa High Court (32 points), Courts of Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Karnataka and Orissa do not (25 points) and Chhattisgarh High make disclosures for any of the 3 categories of information for Court (22 points) had the poorest quality of the disclosures. the subordinate courts.

Certain pertinent observations regarding the quality of (c) Lack of Information on Rules: disclosures by different High Courts are noted below: Under Section 4(1)(b)(v), public authorities are required 1. Who did what right? to disclose ‘the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its It was observed that Kerala had the best disclosures in 5 out employees for discharging its functions’. We had identified of the 6 higher weighted heads which helped it secure the certain categories of Rules which should necessarily be made first rank. For example, it had comprehensive lists of rules available by the High Courts for the convenience of lawyers, applicable to it and categories of documents under its control, litigants as well as interested citizens. These include rules updated details of committees, directory of its employees, as on (1) High Court Procedures (2) recruitment, conditions well as contact details of the PIO. of service of State Judiciary and its employees (3) financial management and the financial powers of the High Court (4) The High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh and RTI (5) Administration of District Judiciary and subordinate Uttarakhand had the best disclosures regarding the budget judiciary under the jurisdiction of the High Court and (6) Any statements. They provided the updated budget and surrender other Rules. statements for the High Court as well as the subordinate courts. We found that High Courts of Bombay and Punjab & Haryana provide a comprehensive list of rules and hence they received 2. Problematic Practices amongst High Courts the highest score under this head. Orissa High Court on the (a) Lack of Periodic Updates of Disclosures: other hand does not mention a single rule under this category and simply states that “The instructions are being issued by the Four heads required the information to be periodically updated Orissa High Court in shape of standing orders, circular letters failing which the information loses its utility and relevance. and general letters to the High Court and the Subordinate These include the directory of employees, budget statements, Courts for discharging their functions”. This information is statement of committees and details of the PIO. The lack of clearly inadequate as the High Court follows a number of rules up-to-date information robs the disclosures of any substantial for its functioning which are easily available on the website value. elsewhere but not in the section pertaining to RTI disclosures.

33 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Some of the other good quality disclosures in this regard The Karnataka High Court and Orissa High Court have the were made by the Allahabad High Court, which provided a disclosures appended at the bottom of their RTI Rules as hyperlink to the body of the rules and the Delhi High Court annexures thereby making it difficult for a citizen to find the which reproduced the text of the Rules within its disclosure. same. The disclosures made by Orissa High Court is incomplete These are good practices which improve the ease of access to as it ends after disclosure under sub-clause (xi). this information. Of all the High Courts, only the High Courts at Chhattisgarh (d) Lack of disclosure of information in relation to categories and Madhya Pradesh publish their disclosures in Hindi of documents held by the High Court exclusively, which is the official language of the state. All other High Courts have the disclosures available in English only. Under Section 4(1)(b)(vi) public authorities are required to Ideally disclosures should be published in both English and the disclose ‘a statement of the categories of documents that are local language of the state which is spoken by citizens residing held by it or under its control’. For disclosures under this head, in the jurisdiction of the High Court. we examined whether the Courts disclosed the category of documents they maintain regarding personnel, recruitment, Figure 4 illustrates the criteria wise scores obtained by the financial and other administrative functions. Additionally we High Courts under the High Court Disclosure Index. The key also observed whether they had identified the custodian for on the next page explains the exact criteria under which the such documents. Having this information helps a citizen seek scores have been awarded. the exact document she requires from the court by approaching the relevant authority/office under the High Court.

We found that the Bombay High Court had the best disclosure in this regard. However, Uttarakhand High Court simply states “(i) Judicial Record. (2) Administrative Record” under the disclosure. The Himachal Pradesh High Court states that since the process of digitization is still on, some branches still maintain information in registers. This does not provide any meaningful information to the reader, but technically fulfils the compliance requirement under the RTI Act.

(e) Ease of Accessing the Disclosure:

While most High Courts have published the disclosures under the RTI Act under a separate RTI tab on their website making it easy for citizens to access the information, there are some High Courts for which, we had to search the website thoroughly or alternatively use internet search engines like Google to find the disclosures. For example, the Gauhati High Court website has the disclosure under a link titled “RTI Notification dated 22-12-2011” and is not easy to spot amongst the list of old amendments and other notifications. The website of the Himachal Pradesh High Court did not have the disclosure under “RTI” tab but instead mentioned it under the “Announcements” tab. Since then, the website has undergone a complete overhaul and we have not been able to locate the disclosure on the new website. Similarly, since the split of the Hyderabad High Court, neither Telangana High Court nor the Andhra Pradesh High Court have published section 4 disclosures on their websites, which is why it has not been evaluated here. However, the disclosure for Hyderabad High Court for 2018 could be found through internet search engines like Google.80

80 For the purpose of this study, this disclosure has not been evaluated as it could not be found on the website of the Andhra Pradesh or Telangana High Court web- site. The disclosure could be found on a link available at https://righttoinformation.wiki/rules/andhrapradesh/court accessed 20 September 2019.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 34 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Clauses of 4(1)(b) Ingredients Score Weights Weighted (NOTE: Each Ingredient is weighted 1 point) to be Total multiplied

(i) the particulars of its 1. Statute that created the High Court 1 organisation, functions and 2. Jurisdiction 1 duties; 3. Workforce 1 4. Office hours 1 5. Contact details 1 Total 5 1 5

(ii) the powers and duties of its 1. Are all employees included? 1 officers and employees; 2. Powers & functions 1 3. Is the source (for example, rules/ 1 office manuals/practice & procedure handbook) which distributes powers and functions mentioned? Total 3 1 3

(iii) the procedure followed 1. If the disclosures provide the source 1 in the decision-making of procedure (for example, rules/ process, including channels of guidelines etc) which apply to the supervision and accountability; functioning of the High Court on the administrative side. 1 2. How does the hierarchy flow? 1 3. If provided for each committee/ if it is provided subject matter wise Total 3 1 3

(v) The rules, regulations, Exhaustive List should include: instructions, manuals and 1. Financial Rules 1 records, held by it or under its 2. Conditions of service (for both officers 1 control or used by its employees and employees) for discharging its functions; 3. RTI rules 1 4. Rules applicable to subordinate courts 1 (civil and criminal) 5. High Court Rules 1 6. Any other rules 1 7. Embedded within a Link/Full Text 1 attached Total 7 2 14

(vi) a statement of the 1. Judicial 1 categories of documents that 2. Personnel 1 are held by it or under its 3. Recruitment 1 control; 4. Financial 1 5. Administrative 1 6. Custodian of documents 1 Total 6 2 12

Higher Weighted Clause

Lower Weighted Clause

35 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Clauses of 4(1)(b) Ingredients Score Weights Weighted (NOTE: Each Ingredient is weighted 1 point) to be Total multiplied

(viii) a statement of the boards, 1. Allocation of administrative work/list 1 councils, committees and other of committees bodies consisting of two or 2. Brief scope of work 1 more persons constituted as 3. Composition of committees 1 its part or for the purpose of 4. Term/tenure of the committee 1 its advice, and as to whether 5. A statement confirming whether or not 1 meetings of those boards, minutes are available to the public councils, committees and other 6. Year (only given a mark if the allocation 1 bodies are open to the public, is actually given) or the minutes of such meetings Total 6 2 12 are accessible for public;

(ix) a directory of its officers and 1. Does the disclosure contain the 1 employees; directory or a link to the directory? 2. Names 1 3. Designations 1 4. Contact details 1 5. Yearly Update 1 Total 5 2 10

(x) the monthly remuneration 1. Grade pay of judges 1 received by each of its officers 2. Grade pay of employees 1 and employees, including the 3. Have they been updated after the 7th 1 system of compensation as pay commission? provided in its regulations; Total 3 1 3

(xi) the budget allocated to each 1. Allocation to the High Court 1 of its agency, indicating the 2. If there are separate budget 1 particulars of all plans, proposed disclosures for subordinate courts/ expenditures and reports on benches? 1 disbursements made; 3. Expenditure Statement 1 4. Whether the statement disclosed has been updated annually? 1 5. Details of planned expenditure 1 6. Audit Reports Total 6 2 12

(xiv) details in respect of the 1. The e-services provided by the HC 1 information, available to or held like cause lists/case status/judgments/ by it, reduced in an electronic orders 1 form; 2. Whether links are embedded in the 1 disclosure 3. The details of statutes/rules/ 1 regulations which have been uploaded on the website 4. Details of administrative documents (for example, tenders) Total 4 1 4

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 36 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Clauses of 4(1)(b) Ingredients Score Weights Weighted (NOTE: Each Ingredient is weighted 1 point) to be Total multiplied

(xv) the particulars of facilities 1. Library timings/ a statement 1 available to citizens for confirming or denying whether it’s obtaining information, including available for public use 1 the working hours of a library or 2. Facility for obtaining copies of court reading room, if maintained for documents 1 public use; 3. Any other facility (like facilitation desk) Total 3 1 3

(xvi) the names, designations 1. Designation of the PIO 1 and other particulars of the 2. Name 1 Public Information Officers; 3. Contact Details 1 4. Have the details been provided for 1 subordinate courts/benches of the HC separately? 5. Have the details been updated yearly? 1 Total 5 2 10

Grand Total 56 91

37 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Figures 4: Detailed High Court Disclosure Index 3 Delhi High Court 6 Gauhati High Court 51/91 47/91

7 7 6 6 weighted score 5 5 4 4 3 3 ranking 1 High Court 2 2 59/91 1 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) 7 6 5 ingredients 4 3 Filled circle indicates a point. 2 Empty circles indicate no points. Higher Weighted Clause (score x 2) 1 E.g. Here, ingredient 3 in subsection Lower Weighted Clause (score x 1) Clause (xi) (xiv) (xiv) has scored one point while ingredients 1,2 & 4 scored no points 7 Madras High Court 8 Jharkhand High Court 46/91 45/91

7 7 6 6 5 5 Ancillary Criteria 4 4 3 3 2 2 Accessibility Local Language Online Services Contact Details 1 1 Easy Yes Easy Yes (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) Moderate No Mediocre Only contact number. Difficult No address

1 2 Punjab & Haryana High Court 9 Gujarat High Court 9 Himachal Pradesh High Court 59/91 57/91 42/91 42/91

7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi)

3 Allahabad High Court 3 Bombay High Court 11 Uttarakhand High Court 12 Madhya Pradesh High Court 51/91 51/91 39/91 35/91

7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi)

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 38 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

3 Delhi High Court 6 Gauhati High Court 51/91 47/91

7 7 6 6 weighted score 5 5 4 4 3 3 ranking 1 High Court 2 2 59/91 1 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) 7 6 5 ingredients 4 3 Filled circle indicates a point. 2 Empty circles indicate no points. Higher Weighted Clause (score x 2) 1 E.g. Here, ingredient 3 in subsection Lower Weighted Clause (score x 1) Clause (xi) (xiv) (xiv) has scored one point while ingredients 1,2 & 4 scored no points 7 Madras High Court 8 Jharkhand High Court 46/91 45/91

7 7 6 6 5 5 Ancillary Criteria 4 4 3 3 2 2 Accessibility Local Language Online Services Contact Details 1 1 Easy Yes Easy Yes (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) Moderate No Mediocre Only contact number. Difficult No address

1 Kerala High Court 2 Punjab & Haryana High Court 9 Gujarat High Court 9 Himachal Pradesh High Court 59/91 57/91 42/91 42/91

7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi)

3 Allahabad High Court 3 Bombay High Court 11 Uttarakhand High Court 12 Madhya Pradesh High Court 51/91 51/91 39/91 35/91

7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi)

39 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

13 Orissa High Court 14 Karnataka High Court 32/91 25/91

7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi)

15 Chhattisgarh High Court 22/91

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xiv) (xv) (xvi)

The High Courts at Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Manipur, Meghalaya, Patna, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana and Tripura have not made any disclosures on their websites under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 40 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Proactive Disclosure of Information under Section V 4 of the RTI Act by the District Courts

The District Courts are most often the first point of contact language, while four made disclosures in both languages. with the justice system a vast majority of litigants across Similarly, in Karnataka, 9 District Courts made disclosures in India. There are an estimated 672 District Courts81 across both languages. the country. In criminal cases, these courts are the first line of defence against unfair arrests or policing since they In some of the other states like Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, decide critical issues such as arrest, remand and bail. Given Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh a small number of the importance of these courts for common citizens, it is the District Courts disclosed very little of the substantial critical that these courts comply with all of the disclosure information mandated under Section 4. Most only provided requirements of Section 4 of the RTI Act to ensure maximum details of the PIO authorised to accept RTI applications. In transparency and to make it easier for citizens to understand many of these cases, the disclosure section was not clearly the working of the courts. identified on the websites and were available under other poorly labelled heads on the websites. As explained earlier, Section 4 disclosures are required to be made by all public authorities on their websites. As a result In many of the big states like Assam, Rajasthan, Madhya of the e-courts project powered by the Central Government Pradesh and West Bengal none of the District Courts had and E-committee of the Supreme Court, a vast majority of the made any kind of Section 4 disclosure under the RTI Act. District Courts finally have websites. We therefore undertook a survey of all the E-court websites of all District Courts to Clearly, the District Courts have a long way to go in fulfilling assess whether they had made any kind of disclosures under the requirements of Section 4 of the RTI Act. The High Courts Section 4 of the RTI Act and if so, whether the disclosures were which are responsible for the administration of all District in both the local language of the state as well as in English. The Courts should issue directions to all District Judges informing language question is particularly important for District Courts them to take the obligations under Section 4 seriously and because most of these courts conduct their proceedings in make the necessary disclosure of information in both the the local language of the state rather than English. However, local language and English. Further it is important, that even dissemination of the information in the English language is in states like Punjab, Haryana and Kerala where all District equally important because these District Courts will often Courts have complied with Section 4, the disclosures be summon or pass orders against citizens living in other states. made both in English and the local language of the state. Most importantly, the High Courts need to put in place a mechanism The results of our survey paint a poor picture of compliance that ensures District Courts under their superintendence of Section 4 of the RTI Act. Apart from the District Courts update their disclosures under Section 4 on a regular basis. in Kerala, Punjab and Haryana where almost all the District Courts published relatively detailed disclosures, most states The performance of all the District Courts has been visualised did not have a single District Court which had made the in Figure 5 as per the State and Union Territory in which they required disclosures under Section 4 on their websites. Most are located. A detailed key explaining the symbols used has of these disclosures in Kerala, Punjab and Haryana were made also been provided. The States and Union Territories have in the English languages and not in the local languages of these been organised alphabetically. states. Only in Kerala, 3 District Courts made disclosures in both English and the local language.

In Karnataka, and Uttarakhand, only 13 (of 30), 20 (of 39) and 6 (of 13) District Courts respectively made detailed disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Most of these disclosures were made in English, except for in Maharashtra, where 13 of the District Courts made disclosures in the local

81 We arrived at this figure based on our survey of the e-Courts websites accessed 17 October 2019

41 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Figure 5: Detailed District Courts Disclosure Index

Languages Both Local English

Detailed Disclosure Breakdown Partial Disclosure* Full disclosure in both languages No Disclosure Full disclosure in local language

An underline (e.g. in the Full disclosure in English case of Goa) indicates information provided in other sections. Rest of the districts have a seperate Partial disclosure in both languages RTI section Partial disclosure in local language *Districts with some information pertaining to the RTI Act Partial disclosure in English (PIO information given)

Andaman & Nicobar Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 42 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Chhattisgarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu

Languages Both Local English

Detailed Disclosure Breakdown Partial Disclosure* Full disclosure in both languages No Disclosure Full disclosure in local language

An underline (e.g. in the Full disclosure in English case of Goa) indicates information provided in other sections. Rest of the Delhi Goa Gujarat districts have a seperate Partial disclosure in both languages RTI section Partial disclosure in local language *Districts with some information pertaining to the RTI Act Partial disclosure in English (PIO information given)

Andaman & Nicobar Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jharkhand

Assam Bihar Chandigarh Karnataka Kerala Lakshwadeep

43 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur

Meghalaya

Odisha Puducherry Punjab

Rajasthan Sikkim

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 44 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Telangana Tripura Uttar Pradesh

Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Uttarakhand West Bengal

Odisha Puducherry Punjab

Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu

45 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

The Submission of Annual Reports by the High VI Courts to the Information Commission

One of the unique provisions of the RTI Act, is Section 25 Courts, it is the states which pay the salaries of the judges and which requires the CIC and the State Information Commission administrative staff of the High Courts. The states also pay the (SIC) to prepare an annual report on the implementation of the salaries of the judges and administrative staff of the District Act.82 This report is to contain information about the number Judiciary. of requests made to each public authority83 under the RTI Act, the number of decisions that denied the information to the The issue of jurisdiction over High Courts was was tackled by applicants outlining also the provisions that were used to deny the CIC in the case of D.N. Loharuka v. High Court of Judicature this information84, the number, nature and outcome of appeals at .90 In pertinent part, the CIC held that High Courts referred to the CIC or the SIC85 the particulars of disciplinary as public authorities fall under the jurisdiction of the CIC for action taken against any officer in respect of the administration the purposes of the RTI Act. The Commission argued that the of this Act86 and the charges collected87 amongst other things. CIC should have exclusive jurisdiction over public authorities The Information Commissions are assisted in this regard which are established or constituted (i) by or under the by the relevant Ministries or Departments who collect the Constitutional provisions concerning the Union of India, (ii) by relevant information for the public authorities under their any other law made by Parliament amongst other criteria. The respective jurisdiction.88 The final reports are required to be constitution and organisation of the High Courts are within tabled before Parliament or the relevant State Legislature and the Parliament’s legislative competence.91 It was therefore provide the information necessary to evaluate the manner in held that High Courts as public authorities come within the which each public authority is administering the RTI Act. jurisdiction of the CIC. While this is sound logic, it should also be reiterated that the High Courts are funded entirely Since we were keen on understanding the implementation out of the Consolidated Fund of each state and not out of the of the RTI Act by the High Courts, we accessed a copy of the Consolidated Fund of India. Given the focus of the RTI Act is CIC’s annual report. To our surprise we discovered that the on accountability, the issue of funding of a public authority is CIC’s annual report provided statistics only with regard to a critical factor that must be accommodated in any analysis the Delhi High Court.89 We then discovered that there is regarding the jurisdiction of the CIC or the SIC. The Loharuka significant confusion on whether High Courts comes within judgment did not consider this line of argument. the jurisdiction of either the CIC or SIC. We have seen both CIC and SICs hear appeals against the rejection of RTI In order to confirm whether the Loharuka judgment was the applications by High Courts. As per the scheme of the RTI accepted position of law we filed an RTI application with Act, it is very clear that all public authorities under the Central the DoJ asking it whether it was collecting the required Government are subject to the jurisdiction of the CIC, while all information from the High Courts.92 The DoJ in response, public authorities under the State Governments are subject merely transferred our RTI application to all High Courts in the to the jurisdiction of the SIC. The High Courts however are country without providing us with an explanation as to why it constitutional bodies that are independent of the Central was not collecting this information from all the High Courts. and State Governments. While only Parliament can make laws regarding the constitution and organisation of High

82 Right to Information Act 2005, s 25(1) 83 Right to Information Act 2005, s 25(3)(a) 84 Right to Information Act 2005, s 25(3)(b) 85 Right to Information Act 2005, s 25(3)(c) 86 Right to Information Act 2005, s 25(3)(d) 87 Right to Information Act 2005, s 25(3)(e) 88 Right to Information Act 2005, s 25(2) 89 Central Information Commission, Annual Report 2017-2018 p 7, 183,193 accessed 1 October 2019. 90 CIC/AT/A/2008/01137 91 , Seventh Schedule, Entry 78, List I. 92 We filed the application with the DoJ specifically because as per Section 25 it is the responsibility of the Ministries and Departments to collect this information and submit it to the CIC. As per the Allocation of Business (Government of India) Rules under Article 77 of the Constitution [Rule 3 Second Schedule II Department of Justice, 104], the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice will be the relevant authority for compiling the information required under Section 25 of the Act and sending it to the CIC.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 46 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Many of the High Courts did not reply to the transferred RTI During the course of our survey we discovered that only the application. Of those which replied, the following SICs were reporting the information required under candidly confessed that “since the adoption of the Act in Section 25 with regard to High Courts as public authorities: 2006, this Hon’ble Court has never maintained the clause(s) of Andhra Pradesh94, Himachal Pradesh95, Kerala96, Madhya section 25 till this date”. Pradesh97, Tamil Nadu98 and Uttarakhand99. Information regarding the Bench, Bench and Of those which were compiling such data under Section 25, Bench of the Gauhati High Court was reported in the Nagaland the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Information Commission’s report100, Mizoram Information Patna, Kerala and Gujarat claimed to be sending the Commission’s report101 and Arunachal Pradesh Information information directly to the SIC. While the High Courts of Commission’s Report102 respectively. Similarly, information Karnataka, Gauhati, Madras and Bombay were sending the about the High Court is included in the the annual reports of information only to the respective law departments of the the Information Commissions of Meghalaya103, Manipur104 and State Governments and not to their respective SICs. Tripura105.

The Orissa High Court replied that they comply with the The fact that the SICs continue to exercise jurisdiction over the requirements of Section 25 without disclosing whether they High Courts under the RTI Act, demonstrates that the CIC’s were sending this information to the relevant authorities. decision in Loharuka is being disregarded by the SICs. The CIC Meghalaya High Court replied that the only information being however does hear appeals against several High Courts. The sent to the DoJ was with regard to the judicial strength and lack of clarity on this aspect of jurisdiction is worrying and it judicial infrastructure. maybe necessary for either the Supreme Court or Parliament to intervene and resolve this confusion. Logically, the same Since the RTI replies from the High Courts were not very Information Commission that is entrusted with hearing appeals helpful, we examined the Annual Reports of the SICs and CIC against the High Courts should be responsible for collecting to check if they were publishing the information required and publishing the information required under Section 25. This under Section 25(3) of the RTI Act for their respective High will allow the Information Commissions to better monitor the Courts. compliance of the High Courts with the provisions of the RTI Act. In the process we discovered that the SICs themselves were not very regular in preparing and publishing their annual reports on their websites.93 Therefore, the last available report on the website of the Commission for each state was considered for this exercise.

93 Satark Nagrik Sangathan and Centre for Equity Studies, ‘Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India’ (2018) p 11 < http://snsindia.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Report-Card-on-Performance-of-Information-Commissions-2018-Key-findings-FINAL.pdf > accessed 1 October 2019. 94 Andhra Pradesh Information Commission, Annual Report 2014 (for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) p 61 accessed 1 October 2019 95 Himachal Pradesh Information Commission, Annual Report 2016-2017, p 12 accessed 1 October 2019 96 Kerala Information Commission, Annual Report, p 52,73,94 accessed 1 October 2019 97 Madhya Pradesh Information Commission, Annual Report p 145 accessed 1 October 2019 98 Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Annual Report, p 56 accessed 1 October 2019 99 Uttarakhand Information Commission, Annual Report 2013-2014, p 68 accessed 1 October 2019 100 Nagaland Information Commission Annual Report for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, p 49 accessed 1 October 2019 101 Mizoram State Information Commission Annual Report for 2017-2018, p 24 accessed 1 October 2019 102 Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission Annual Report 2016-2017, p 83 accessed 1 October 2019 103 Meghalaya Information Commission, 12th Annual Report 2017, p 56 accessed 1 October 2019 104 Manipur Information Commission, Annual Report 2015-2016 p 41 accessed 1 October 2019 105 Tripura Information Commission, Annual Report 2013-2014, p 14,17,32 accessed 1 October 2019

47 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

VII Conclusion

The RTI Act has been in existence for 14 years. The legislation information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands has ushered in a transparency revolution in governance of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in which in turn has strengthened the accountability of public transparency and accountability.” institutions in India. It should then be a matter of concern to see the judiciary lagging behind even the Government of India So why then, has there been such a yawning gap between when it comes to abiding by the letter and spirit of the RTI the judiciary’s bold pronouncements on transparency and its Act. The fact that the RTI Rules of so many High Courts have actual enforcement of the transparency requirements of the provisions that run the risk of being declared ultra vires the RTI RTI Act? Act coupled with the fact that 9 High Courts and most District Courts have not bothered to make any of the disclosures under A possible answer to the above question is that neither Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, is indicative of serious systemic the Bar nor civil society have made a serious demand issues within the administrative side of the judiciary. It is also for greater administrative transparency within the High telling, that on our convenience index, not a single High Court Courts. This is because most of the conversation for was able to match the convenience offered by the Government greater judicial transparency has focussed on ensuring of India’s RTI Rules. Figure 6 illustrates the scores obtained ‘individual accountability’ of judges rather than ‘institutional by the various High Courts under the Legality, Convenience, accountability’ of the judiciary.109 The recurring debate on Practice and Disclosure Indices. whether personal assets of judges of the Supreme Court are covered under the RTI Act falls within the first category. In particular, the lack of transparency in financial matters These issues of ‘individual’ and ‘institutional accountability’ of the High Courts is very worrying. Most High Courts do are entirely different categories. Save for a few honourable not proactively publish details about their budgets and exceptions referenced earlier in this report, there is relatively expenditure. Even fewer High Courts are willing to provide little writing or civil society action on the issue of ‘institutional copies of their budgets and audit reports under the RTI Act. accountability’ of the High Courts which play a far more The Telangana High Court cited a judgment of the Madras important role, than the Supreme Court, in planning for and High Court to refuse our request for budget and expenditure administering the district judiciary which is the first point of statements when the Madras High Court itself was more than contact for most litigants who seek justice. ready to share the same information. Similarly, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which otherwise does a very good job While it is not our case that more administrative transparency in complying with the RTI Act, declined to share a copy of its within the High Courts will automatically lead to a more audit reports106 despite having agreed to the same in its initial accountable and efficient judiciary, it will certainly create the communication.107 This is a serious issue given that the Punjab foundations for Indian civil society and the Bar to demand & Haryana High Court has had a budget of Rs. 973 crores over more accountability of the High Courts and hopefully such the last 5 years.108 accountability will translate into more efficiency.

This lack of administrative transparency within the Indian We believe that such an approach, which focuses on judiciary, is ironic, given that it was the Supreme Court of institutional transparency will be more effective in tackling India which had declared ‘open government’ to be implicit in the issue of pendency than merely appointing more judges or the fundamental right to free speech which is guaranteed providing more resources to the judiciary. under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In 2011, it was the same Supreme Court which declared that “The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to

106 Letter No 526/PIO/HC/RTI-1 dated 13.03.2019 107 Letter No. 672/PIO/HC dated 23.04.2019 108 Based on RTI replies given by Punjab and Haryana High Court 109 Arghya Sengupta, Independence & Accountability of the Indian Higher Judiciary (CUP 2019) 124

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 48 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

To this end, we are sending copies of this report, along with recommendations for change, to each High Court explaining to them how best they can amend their respective RTI Rules, make better disclosures under their RTI Act and train their PIOs to better respond to applications under the RTI Act. If High Courts can ensure that their own officers complied with the RTI Act, they would be taking the first steps toward building the foundations of a more transparent, accountable and efficient judiciary which will undoubtedly contribute to strengthening the ‘rule of law’ in India.

49 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Figure 6: Scores and ranks obtained by the High Courts under the Legality, Convenience, Practice and High Court Disclosure Indices

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-20 Allahabad -55 ranks -37 3 20 18 3 51 -30 Andhra Pradesh -40 NA 6 8 - 16 0 -50 Bombay -25 10 12 4 12 3 51 Legality -40 Calcutta -40 -50 Convenience 8 8 20 16 0 -50 Chhattisgarh -65 Practice -80 12 24 23 15 22 -55 Section 4 Delhi -20 50 15 2 1 3 51 -80 Best Performing Court(s) Gauhati -50 under this category 21 13 4 6 40 47 -100 Worst Performing Court(s) Gujarat -60 under this category 27 24 21 5 9 42 -40 Himachal Pradesh -30 8 5 11 9 12 42 -15 Jharkhand -50 2 13 12 8 10 45 -20 Karnataka -50 50 3 13 1 14 25 -40 Kerala -20 50 8 2 1 1 59 -60 Madhya Pradesh -50 -40 18 13 19 12 35 -10 Madras -60 -30 1 21 17 7 46 -80 Manipur -50 21 13 9 16 13 0 -85 Meghalaya -60 15 23 21 7 16 0 -55 When two out of the three Orissa -50 RTI applications were filed, -50 15 13 20 13 32 the High Court of Judicature -60 Patna -10 at Hyderabad had not been 0 18 1 15 16 0 bifurcated into the High -20 Punjab & Haryana -30 Court of Telangana and the 0 3 5 15 2 57 High Court of Andhra -50 Rajasthan -50 Pradesh. Since most of the 12 13 14 16 3 0 applications were not filed -65 Sikkim -30 with the High Court of 20 5 9 16 13 0 Andhra Pradesh, it does not -30 Telangana -40 form a part of the Practice -60 6 8 22 16 0 Index -55 Tripura -40 15 8 7 16 15 0 -40 Uttarakhand -40 20 8 8 6 11 39

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 50 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-20 Allahabad -55 ranks -37 3 20 18 3 51 -30 Andhra Pradesh -40 NA 6 8 - 16 0 -50 Bombay -25 10 12 4 12 3 51 Legality -40 Calcutta -40 -50 Convenience 8 8 20 16 0 -50 Chhattisgarh -65 Practice -80 12 24 23 15 22 Section 4 Annexures -55 Delhi -20 50 15 2 1 3 51 -80 Best Performing Court(s) Gauhati -50 under this category 21 13 4 6 40 47 -100 Worst Performing Court(s) Gujarat -60 under this category 27 24 21 5 9 42 -40 Himachal Pradesh -30 8 5 11 9 12 42 -15 Jharkhand -50 2 13 12 8 10 45 -20 Karnataka -50 50 3 13 1 14 25 -40 Kerala -20 50 8 2 1 1 59 -60 Madhya Pradesh -50 -40 18 13 19 12 35 -10 Madras -60 -30 1 21 17 7 46 -80 Manipur -50 21 13 9 16 13 0 -85 Meghalaya -60 15 23 21 7 16 0 -55 When two out of the three Orissa -50 RTI applications were filed, -50 15 13 20 13 32 the High Court of Judicature -60 Patna -10 at Hyderabad had not been 0 18 1 15 16 0 bifurcated into the High -20 Punjab & Haryana -30 Court of Telangana and the 0 3 5 15 2 57 High Court of Andhra -50 Rajasthan -50 Pradesh. Since most of the 12 13 14 16 3 0 applications were not filed -65 Sikkim -30 with the High Court of 20 5 9 16 13 0 Andhra Pradesh, it does not -30 Telangana -40 form a part of the Practice -60 6 8 22 16 0 Index -55 Tripura -40 15 15 8 7 16 0 -40 Uttarakhand -40 20 8 8 6 11 39

51 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 52 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Annexure A

(Template of the RTI application seeking information on implementation of Commercial Courts Act from the High Courts) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

To Public Information Officer, ______High Court

Date of Application

Name of Applicant

Postal Address

Contact phone no.

Email ID

Specific subject matter of the document Information regarding the pendency of cases in the High Court and the Commercial Courts Act.

Further details of queries 1. Please provide us with information on whether the Commercial Courts, Commercial Appellate Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 has been notified by your High Court as required under Section 3(1), Section 3A and Section 5(1) of the Act. If yes, please please provide us with the notification. 2. Please provide us with statistical data on the number of civil, criminal and total cases, instituted, pending and disposed of by the High Court, with a month wise breakdown from November 2015 to October 2018. 3. Please provide us with statistical data that is required to be maintained under Section 17 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Please provide month wise data from December 2015 to October 2018. 4. Please provide us with the names of all judges assigned to the Commercial Courts and the Commercial Appellate Courts at the district court level as required under Section 3(1) and Section 3A of the Commercial Courts Act with with their respective tenures. 5. Please provide us with the names of all judges assigned to Commercial Appellate Division as required under Section 5(2) of the Commercial Courts Act with their respective tenures, as judges of these courts. 6. Please provide us with the nomenclature and corollary abbreviation used for cases under the Commercial Courts Act at both the District Court and High Court level, under the heading ‘case types’ [e.g. CREF Criminal Reference]. Please provide us the information for cases covered by the Commercial Courts Act.

Preferred format of receipt of Soft/digital copy preferred in English language. information.

Preferred mode of receipt of copy of By speed post/email, if soft/ digital copy is not convenient. documents

Is inspection of documents requested No

53 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Mode of payment of application fee Via Post

I am herewith paying the application fee ____ by way of ______.

If you are of the view that the above requested information does not pertain to your department, then please follow the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 and direct the query to the concerned authority. Also, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, kindly provide the details (including name and designation) of the first appellate authority before which I may, if required, file my first appeal. NOTE: Since the High Court website does not mention the person the postal order is to be addressed to, a blank postal order is enclosed, which you may fill as per your convenience.

Regards,

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 54 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Annexure B

(Template of the RTI application seeking information on implementation of Commercial Courts Act from the High Courts) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

To Public Information Officer, ______High Court

Date of Application

Name of Applicant

Postal Address

Contact phone no.

Email ID

Specific subject matter of the Details regarding fund allocation for the judiciary document

Further details of queries In this regard kindly provide

1. Photocopies of statement showing the budget estimates prepared by the High Court and submitted to the UP Law Department for the preparation of demand for grants by the department during financial years: • (2014-2015) • (2015-2016) • (2016-2017) • (2017-2018) • (2018-2019)

2. Photocopies of statement showing budget allocation by the government to the High Court under the head “administration of justice” and expenditure incurred by the High Court against the allocated budget under : • administration of justice for the High Court, • administration of justice for subordinate courts including civil and session courts, criminal courts and family courts. for the financial earsy • (2014-2015) • (2015-2016) • (2016-2017) • (2017-2018) • (2018-2019)

3. The photocopies of statements showing funds surrendered (final excess and saving statement) for the financial years • (2014-2015) • (2015-2016) • (2016-2017) • (2017-2018)

55 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

4(a). Statement showing the component wise and head wise grant received under the 13th and 14th for the financial years • (2014-2015) • (2015-2016) • (2016-2017) • (2017-2018) • (2018-2019)

4(b). A copy of the statement showing progress report of the extent of utilisation of funds received under 13th and 14th Finance Commission for the financial years • (2014-2015) • (2015-2016) • 2016-2017) • 2017-2018) • (2018-2019)

5. The statement showing details of allocation made to the law department under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme by the Centre and the for the implementation of the scheme for the financial years : • (2014-2015) • (2015-2016) • (2016-2017) • (2017-2018) • (2018-2019)

6. The copy of the statement showing expenditure incurred under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for the financial years : • (2014-2015) • (2015-2016) • (2016-2017) • (2017-2018) • (2018-2019)

Under Section 4(1) (b)(xi) of the RTI Act, the budget allocation for each of its agency, indicating all particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made should be proactively disclosed by the public authorities.

Preferred format of receipt of Soft/digital copy preferred in English language. information.

Preferred mode of receipt of copy of By speed post/email, if soft/ digital copy is not convenient. documents

Is inspection of documents requested No

Mode of payment of application fee Via Post

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 56 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

I am herewith paying the application fee of Rs. _____ by way of ______.

If you are of the view that the above requested information does not pertain to your department, then please follow the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 and direct the query to the concerned authority. Also, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, kindly provide the details (including name and designation) of the first appellate authority before which I may, if required, file my first appeal.

Regards,

57 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Annexure C

(Template of the RTI application seeking copies of audit reports of the High Courts) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

To Public Information Officer, ______High Court

Date of Application

Name of Applicant

Postal Address

Contact phone no.

Email ID

Specific subject matter of the document Audit Reports

Further details of queries Please provide copies of the audit reports of the High Court for the years of 2013 to 2018.

Preferred format of receipt of Soft/digital copy preferred in English language. information.

Preferred mode of receipt of copy of By speed post/email, if soft/ digital copy is not convenient. documents

Is inspection of documents requested No

Mode of payment of application fee Via Post

I am herewith paying the application fee of Rs. ____ by way of _____.

If you are of the view that the above requested information does not pertain to your department, then please follow the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 and direct the query to the concerned authority. Also, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, kindly provide the details (including name and designation) of the first appellate authority before which I may, if required, file my first appeal.

Regards,

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 58 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Annexure D

(RTI application filed with the Department of Justice seeking information about reports filed under Section 25(2) of the RTI Act. This application was transferred by the DoJ to the various High Courts.)

Online RTI Request Form Details RTI Request Details :-

RTI Request Registra JUSTC/R/2019/50306 Public Authority Department of Jus

Personal Details of RTI Applicant:- Name Vaidehi Misra Gender Female Address Pincode Country India State Delhi Status Urban Educa atus Literate Above Graduate Phone Number Mobile Number Email-ID Request Details :- enship Indian Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ? No (Descrip forma t (upto 500 characters) Descrip forma t

Please tell us whether High Courts across India provide the DoJ data, for the purposes of crea the report under 25(2) of the Right to Informa ontaining all the relevant informa

Concerned CPIO Nodal Officer

t (only pdf upto 1 MB) t not provided

Print Close

59 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Annexure E

(RTI application filed with the Department of Justice seeking information on courts developments plans. This application was transferred by the DoJ to the various High Courts.)

Select Language: English Public Authories Available RTI Online Version 2.0 An Iniave of Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India

Submit Request Submit First Appeal View Status User Manual FAQ My Account Login History Feedback

Final Status of JUSTC/R/2018/52814

Applicant Name Chitrakshi Jain Date of receipt 20/12/2018 Request Filed With Department of Jusce Kindly provide copies of the COURT DEVELOPMENT PLANS which were submi�ed to the 14th Finance Commission by the High Courts drawn up for all High Courts and District Courts, covering ma�ers Text of Applicaon relang to infrastructure, computerizaon, human resource development, se�ng measurable performance standards, performance parameters, enhancing user friendliness of the judicial system, etc. Request document (if any) Status REQUEST PHYSICALLY TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY as on 25/12/2018 Date of Acon 25/12/2018 Remarks Details of Public Authority :- Registrar (Admn.), Hon'ble Delhi High Court Print

Home | Naonal Portal of India | Complaint & Second Appeal to CIC | FAQ Copyright © 2013. All rights reserved. Designed, Developed and Hosted by Naonal Informacs Centre, New Delhi

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 60 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

61 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 62 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Volume II

Reports for Individual High Courts

63 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 64 WWW.LIVELAW.IN Contents of Volume II

High Court of Judicature of Allahabad...... 67

Andhra Pradesh High Court...... 69

High Court of Judicature of Bombay...... 71

Calcutta High Court...... 73

Chhattisgarh High Court...... 75

Delhi High Court...... 78

Gauhati High Court ...... 80

Gujarat High Court...... 83

Himachal Pradesh High Court...... 86

Jharkhand High Court...... 89

Karnataka High Court...... 91

Kerala High Court...... 93

Madhya Pradesh High Court...... 95

Madras High Court...... 98

Manipur High Court...... 101

Meghalaya High Court...... 104

Orissa High Court...... 107

Patna High Court...... 110

Punjab and Haryana High Court ...... 112

Rajasthan High Court ...... 114

Sikkim High Court...... 117

Telangana High Court...... 120

Tripura High Court...... 123

Uttarakhand High Court...... 126

65 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 66 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

After analysing the Allahabad (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 as amended in 2012 and 2013, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Allahabad High Court.

3

Legality -20 20

Convenience -55

Practice -37 Key: 3 18 51 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for RTI Act. citizens

1. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules places a limit on the 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on number of items that can be asked in an RTI application. It the High Court website in the local language of the State. is recommended that the limit on the number of questions Currently only the amendments made to the High Court that can be asked be removed because such a limit restricts Rules in 2012 and 2013 are available in the local language. the scope of the right to information as articulated by 2. Rule 4(c) of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 50 Section 6 of the RTI Act. Such limitations on the number of as the cost of fi ling an RTI application. We recommend items that can be asked in an RTI application are vulnerable that the cost of fi ling an RTI application be reduced to Rs. to being struck down for being ultra vires Section 6 of the 10 to make it at par with the fee charged by the Central RTI Act. Government RTI Rules, 2012, as well as the Supreme 2. Rule 20 of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant Court. to make a declaration of bona-fi de intent. We recommend 3. Rule 5 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 15 as the the deletion of such a requirement as it goes against per-page cost of providing information. We recommend Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very clearly mentions that the per-page cost of providing information be that citizens are not required to provide any reasons for reduced to Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the fi ling a RTI application. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) The Supreme Court charges the same fees as the Central ruled against such requirements to make a declaration Government when it comes to the RTI Act. regarding bona-fi de intent. 4. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour being free to set it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012.

67 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

5. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules, does not allow for Therefore, it is requested that PIO be instructed to not Indian postal orders as a form of payment for an RTI reject the application on account of the failure of payment application. We recommend that payments be permitted of application fees. through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, D. Recommendations regarding Section 4(1)(b) we recommend that Rule 4 be amended to include postal Disclosures by the High Court orders and bankers’ cheques. In addition we recommend 1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing that the High Court adopt digital modes such as UPI, information under Section 4 the disclosures also be made e-payment gateways and NEFT transfer as methods of available in the local language. payment. 2. The information under the disclosure available on the 6. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees website is for FY 2014-2015. As per Section 4(2), public for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the authorities are required to update such disclosures at High Court do not mention the identifying documents regular intervals. We recommend that the disclosure be required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend annually updated for the information to remain relevant. that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court We also recommend that the disclosures be archived on RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central the website of the High Court. Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. 3. While the disclosure mentions that the Chief Justice of the High Court has constituted committees for C. Recommendations regarding practices of the discharging different functions, it does not provide details Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI regarding the composition of the said committees or applications the scope of their work. Under Section 4(1)(b)(viii), the [NOTE: All 3 applications fi led were rejected by the High Court] public authorities are required to provide a statement of committees. We recommend that the composition and 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states scope of work of such committees be published under the that the PIO is to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously disclosure and be regularly updated. as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request. However, we received replies to 1 out of the E. Recommendations regarding Section 4(1)(b) 3 applications, fi led with the Allahabad High Court, after Disclosures by the District Courts 30 days of fi ling the application. We, therefore, request 1. Out of the 75 District Courts in Uttar Pradesh, only 1 that the PIO be instructed to reply to all RTI applications District Court (Maharajganj) website has properly labelled within 30 days of receipt of the application. To ensure the disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in the local disposal of applications in a timely manner we request language but not in English. Another 26 District Court the High Court to revisit its procedures for disposing websites have provided information regarding the Public RTI applications to remove bottlenecks and streamline Information Offi cer & Appellate Authority in English but procedures. not in the local language. 48 other District Court websites 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided have no disclosures. in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act though our preferred mode of communication was email, in both English and the local language. The information the rule was not followed in either of the 3 replies that we provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed website under a separate section that is labelled as to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This “Disclosures under the RTI Act”. is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the time taken to communicate between the authority and applicant is signifi cantly reduced. 3. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period of fi ve days. However, 2 of the applications transferred by the Department of Justice to the High Court were rejected on account of non-payment of application fees. Requiring applicants to once again pay for transferred applications is in clear contravention of the RTI Act.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 68 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Andhra Pradesh High Court

We analysed the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005 as amended in 2013 and 2017, which we presume were adopted by the High Court after the bifurcation of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court on 1st January, 2019. We also analysed includes the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts, under its jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.1 The following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

6

Legality -30 8

Convenience -40

Practice NA Key: 16 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the name the fee has to be deposited when an RTI application RTI Act is fi led with a District Court.

1. While the High Court RTI Rules are available on the B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the website, the amendments have not been published on the RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for website. We recommend that a clear copy of the RTI Rules citizens of the High Court be published on the website of the High Court. 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name the High Court website in the local language of the State. of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the 2. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 15 as the RTI application, can be deposited for the High Court. per hour cost for inspection of documents. We recommend Citizens require such information while making payments that the cost of inspection be reduced to Rs. 5 per hour, through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We with the fi rst hour being free to bring it at par with Rule recommend the RTI Rules of the High Court be amended 4(f) the Central Government Right to Information Rules, to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose 2012. name the fee has to be deposited. 3. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules, does not mention 3. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name bankers’ cheques as 1 of the methods of payment of of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the RTI RTI fees. We recommend that payments be permitted application with the District Courts, can be deposited. through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central Citizens require such information while making payments Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. we recommend that Rule 3 be amended to include We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended to

1 Unlike for the other High Courts, we have not evaluated the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the practices of its PIOs in responding to RTI applications. This is because we had fi led most of the RTI applications with the High Courts in November 2018 when the Andhra Pradesh High Court had not yet been created. At the time, 2 of the RTI applications had been fi led with the Hyderabad High Court. We received replies to these applications from the Telangana High Court since the Hyderabad High Court had been bifurcated on 1st January, 2019.

69 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

banker’s cheques in addition to electronic means such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT transfer as methods of payment. 4. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the High Court do not mention, the identifying documents required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012.

C. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court

1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure on the website of the High Court. We recommend that the High Court prepare a disclosure as required under Section 4(1)(b) and make it available on the website of the High Court. Further the High Court must update the disclosure annually.

D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. None of the 13 District Courts in Andhra Pradesh have made any disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their websites. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 70 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay

After analysing the Bombay High Court Right to Information (Revised) Rules, 2009 as amended in 2017, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Bombay High Court.

12

Legality -50 4

Convenience -25 12

Practice 10 Key: 3 51 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI and duties of the courts, Rule 13(e) permits denial of Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the information that may affect the confi dentiality of the RTI Act judicial service examinations, Rule 13(h) permits denial of information that is contained in published material 1. The Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules, 2009 are silent available to the public or which is available on the website. regarding the name of the authority in whose name the We recommend these rules be deleted because Section fees, for fi ling the RTI application with the District Courts, 8 of the RTI Act already prescribes specifi c categories can be deposited. Citizens require such information while of documents that may be exempted from the RTI Act. making payments through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or The CIC has already held in Suraj Prakash Manchanda demand drafts. We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be v. Public Information Offi cer, Tiz Hazari Courts (No. CIC/ amended to specifi cally provide the name of the authority SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that public authorities in whose name the fee has to be deposited. cannot prescribe new categories of exemption in their 2. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory rules, over and beyond the exemptions in Section 8. to fi le RTI applications in a prescribed format. The 4. Rule 15 of the High Court RTI Rules require citizens to pay Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No. F.No. a fee of Rs. 20 for an appeal. We recommend deleting this 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central rule because the RTI Act does not allow public authorities Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira the power to charge for appeals. The CIC in the case of L.G. v. Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) Dass v. Patiala House Court (CIC/AD/A/2013/001687SA) have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe recommended to the Delhi High Court that it delete the a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for provision in the Delhi District Court (Right to Information) information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the Rules which charged a fee for hearing appeals. use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made mandatory. B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the 3. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for information that need not be shared with citizens under citizens the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rules 13(a) permits denial of information not in the public domain, Rule 13(b) permits 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on denial of information that relates to judicial functions the High Court website in the local language of the State.

71 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes an additional 2. All the departments and functionaries on the original and requirement of sending a self-addressed envelope bearing appellate side have made independent disclosures under postal stamps equivalent to the rate prescribed for Section 4. While this is a good practice, the number of registered post in addition to paying the cost for fi ling disclosures may confuse ordinary citizens. the RTI. We recommend the deletion of this rule because 3. Given the multiplicity of disclosures, general information neither the RTI Rules of the Central Government nor the regarding particulars of organization, statement of Supreme Court prescribe such a requirement over and committees, particulars of facilities available to citizens above the fee of Rs. 10 that is payable as the fee for fi ling for obtaining information, common to the entire High an RTI application. There is no other High Court (except Court cannot be found. the Chhattisgarh High Court) which requires the applicant 4. We recommend that a consolidated, properly indexed to provide a self-addressed and stamped envelope along disclosure be prepared at the level of the High Court with an RTI application. rather than only department level disclosures. This would 3. We recommend that payments be permitted through make it easier for the citizens to access information. all the methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. We, thus, E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures recommend that the High Court RTI Rules be amended to by the District Courts include digital modes of payments such as UPI, e-payment 1. The District Courts in Goa and Maharashtra as well as the gateways and NEFT transfer as methods of payment. Union Territories of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu come under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. C. Recommendations regarding practices of the No disclosures have been made by the 1 District Court in Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI Dadra & Nagar Haveli or the 2 District Courts in Daman & applications Diu. Out of the 2 District Courts in Goa, both websites have [NOTE: Of the 3 RTI applications that were fi led with the properly labelled disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the Bombay High Court 1 was rejected.] RTI Act in English but not in the local language. However, 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided neither of the disclosures are in a separate RTI section on in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be the website. Out of the 39 District Courts in Maharashtra, provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even 20 District Court websites have properly labelled though our preferred mode of communication was email, disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Of these the rule was not followed in any of the 3 replies that we disclosures, 13 are in the local language, 3 in English and 4 received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed District Court websites have disclosures in both the local to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This language and English. All of these disclosures are available is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the in a separate RTI section on the website. The remaining 19 time taken to communicate between the authority and District Court websites have made no disclosures. applicant is signifi cantly reduced. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide 2. 1 of the RTI applications that we fi led requesting audit detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act reports of the Bombay High Court for the years from 2013 in both English and the local language. The information to 2018 was rejected on the ground that the application provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts was not in compliance with the format given in the rules, website under a separate section that is labelled as when in fact, the format had been followed. “Disclosures under the RTI Act”. 3. The RTI application requesting the audit report was additionally rejected on the grounds that the request was “vague, unspecifi c and lacking in details” and that the “details/particulars/nature of the audit has not been given”. However, some of the other High Courts responded to the identically worded RTI applications by providing us with their respective audit reports. It is recommended that the PIO be sensitised to adopt a pro-disclosure approach while dealing with RTI applications.

D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court

1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing information under Section 4 the disclosures also be made available in the local language.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 72 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Calcutta High Court

After analysing the Calcutta High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 as amended in 2008, 2011 and 2012, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Calcutta High Court.

8

Legality -40

Convenience -40

8 Practice -50 Key: 16 20 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the ruled against such requirements to make a declaration RTI Act regarding bonafi de intent.

1. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the of the authority in whose name the fees for fi ling the RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for RTI application with the High Court, can be deposited. citizens Citizens require such information while making payments through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on recommend the RTI Rules of the High Court be amended the High Court website in the local language of the State. to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose 2. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for name the fee has to be deposited. inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour of the authority in whose name the fees for fi ling the RTI being free, to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central application with the District Courts, can be deposited. Government Right to Information Rules, 2012, which have Citizens require such information while making payments also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. 3. Rule 10 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists demand draft, We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended to bankers’ cheque, court fee stamps and Indian postal specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose orders as methods of payment of RTI fees. We recommend name the fee has to be deposited. that payments be permitted through all the methods 3. Form A of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to to make a declaration of bonafi de intent. We recommend Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, we recommend that the deletion of such a requirement as it goes against Rule 10 be amended to include cash. In addition, we also Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very clearly mentions recommend adding electronic means of payment such as that citizens are not required to provide any reasons for UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT transfer. fi ling a RTI application. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar 4. The RTI Act allows for exemption/reduction of payment of RTI fees for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the High Court do not mention, the identifying documents

73 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend 5. The applications that were replied to by the High Court that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court were not to the satisfaction of the applicants. The fi rst RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central application sought details on the judicial budget of the Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 which have state. The applicant was merely directed to the West also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. Bengal Finance Department website, which did not have the required information. For the second application, C. Recommendations regarding practices of the regarding data related to Section 17 of the Commercial Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI Courts Act, 2015 all the questions were not answered. The applications High Court also sought time to provide a reply, which was eventually never provided. We would recommend that the [NOTE: Of the 3 RTI applications that were fi led with the PIOs be sensitized about the importance and workings of Calcutta High Court, 1 did not receive a reply, apart from an the RTI Act through training sessions by specialists in the interim reply “soliciting” our cooperation while our application area. was being “processed” on the grounds that the data was yet to be fi nalised.] D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states that the PIO is to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously 1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned of the request. However, 1 out of the 3 applications fi led in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure with the Calcutta High Court was not replied to at all and on the website of the High Court. We recommend that the the other 2 applications were responded to after 40 days High Court prepare a disclosure as required under Section of receipt of the application. We, therefore, request that 4(1)(b) and make it available on the website of the High the PIO be instructed to reply to all RTI applications within Court. Further the High Court must update the disclosure 30 days of fi ling the application. To ensure the disposal of annually. applications in a timely manner we request the High Court to revisit its procedures for disposing RTI applications to E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures remove bottlenecks and streamline procedures. by the District Courts 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided 1. The District Courts in West Bengal & the Union Territory in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be of Andaman & Nicobar Islands come under the jurisdiction provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even of the Calcutta High Court. None of the 21 District Courts though our preferred mode of communication was email, in West Bengal & the 3 District Courts in the Union the rule was not followed in the 2 replies that we received. Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, have made the We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed to required disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This is 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act time taken to communicate between the authority and in both English and the local language. The information applicant is signifi cantly reduced. provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts 3. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 website under a separate section that is labelled as makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the “Disclosures under the RTI Act”. First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even when information is being provided to the applicant under the RTI Act. It is thus requested that the PIO be instructed to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority while replying to all RTI applications. The 2 replies received from the High Court did not provide such details. 4. Both applications that contained multiple questions did not receive question wise replies. It is requested that the PIO be instructed to provide question wise replies to enable an applicant to match the responses to individual questions and prevent PIOs from side-stepping specifi c questions by providing a consolidated response.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 74 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Chhattisgarh High Court

After analysing the Chhattisgarh High Court, Right to Information Rules, 2005 as amended in 2013, the disclosures made by the High Court and the District Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Chhattisgarh High Court.

12

Legality -50

Convenience -65

24 Practice -80 Key: 15 23 22 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI 3. Rule 14.1 of the High Court RTI Rules require citizens to Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the pay a fee of Rs. 40 for fi ling an appeal. We recommend RTI Act deleting this rule because the RTI Act does not allow public authorities to charge for appeals. The CIC in the case of L.G. 1. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules restricts the subject Dass v Patiala House Court CIC/AD/A/2013/001687SA) matter, as well as the number of words per RTI application. recommended to the Delhi High Court that it delete the As per this rule an applicant can ask only 1 question provision in the Delhi District Court (Right to Information) per RTI application and even that 1 question has to be Rules which charged a fee for hearing appeals. limited to 150 words. It is recommended that the limit on 4. We recommend deleting Rule 4 of the High Court RTI questions as well as on words be removed because such a Rules which make it mandatory to appear before the restriction restricts the scope of the right to information public authority after the submission of an RTI application. as articulated by Section 6 of the RTI Act. Such limitations In our opinion this requirement is ultra vires the scheme of on the questions/words that can be asked in a single RTI the RTI Act, especially Section 6(2) which merely requires application are vulnerable to being struck down for being a citizen to submit their contact details along with the ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. application. The underlying assumption of the RTI Act 2. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory is that the entire application process can be completed to fi le RTI applications in a prescribed format. The through written applications rather than oral hearings. Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No. F.No. In fact, no other High Court has a requirement for an oral 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central hearing in order to process an RTI Application. Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira v Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the have, both, reiterated that public authorities cannot RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for prescribe a mandatory form for citizens to make requests citizens for information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the use of a form be deleted or at the very least, not be 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on made mandatory. the High Court website in the local language of the State.

75 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 12 as reply to all RTI applications within 30 days of receipt of the cost of fi ling an RTI application. Additionally, the rules the application. To ensure the disposal of applications require that a self-addressed envelope bearing necessary in a timely manner we request the High Court to revisit postal stamps also be enclosed if the information is its procedures for disposing RTI applications to remove sought by post. We recommend that the cost of fi ling an bottlenecks and streamline procedures. RTI application be reduced to Rs. 10 and the additional 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided requirement be removed to make it at par with the fee in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be charged by the Central Government RTI Rules, 2012 that provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even have also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. though our preferred mode of communication was email, 3. Rule 14 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 10, the rule was not followed in the 1 reply that we received per page, as photocopying charges and Rs. 15, per page, from the High Court. We, therefore, request that the PIO as printing charges for providing information in response be instructed to reply in the method preferred by the to RTI applications. We recommend that the per-page applicant. This is particularly benefi cial in the case of an cost of providing information be reduced to Rs. 2 to bring email since the time taken to communicate between the it at par with Rule 4 of the Central Government Right to authority and applicant is signifi cantly reduced. Information Rules, 2012. The Supreme Court charges the 3. 1 of the RTIs applications that we had fi led, sought copies same fees as the Central Government when it comes to of the audit reports of the High Court. The PIO deemed the RTI Act. the information confi dential having no relationship with 4. Rule 14 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 10 per any ‘public activity or any public interest’. It should be hour as the cost for inspection. We recommend that the noted that there is no such ground of exemption in Section cost of inspection be reduced to Rs. 5 per hour, with the 8 of the RTI Act. We have therefore classifi ed this reply as fi rst hour being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the a mala-fi de reply. Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. 4. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does 5. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules, does not prescribe not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to Indian postal orders, bankers cheques or demand drafts transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period as methods of payment of fees under the RTI Act. We of fi ve days. However, 1 of the 2 applications transferred recommend that payments be permitted through all the by the Department of Justice to the High Court was methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government rejected on account of non-payment of application fees Right to Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, we while the other was never responded to by the High Court. recommend that Rule 3 be amended to include Indian Requiring applicants to once again pay for transferred postal orders, bankers cheques or demand drafts, in applications is in clear contravention of the RTI Act. addition to digital modes of payments, such as UPI, Therefore, it is requested that PIO be instructed to not e-payment gateways and NEFT transfer as methods of reject the application on account of the failure of payment payment of fees under the RTI Act. of application fees. 6. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures High Court do not mention the identifying documents by the High Court required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend 1. The disclosure is available in the offi cial language of the that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court state, which is a good practice for increasing access to RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central information. Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. 2. The list of rules provided under Section 4(1)(b)(v) needs to be made more comprehensive and ideally hyperlinks C. Recommendations regarding practices of the should be provided to the text of the Rules. Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI 3. The disclosure says that the requirement under Section applications 4(1)(b)(viii) is not relevant to the High Court while the [NOTE: Of the 3 RTI applications that were fi led with the same disclosure under Section 4(1)(b)(iii) states that Chhattisgarh High Court, 2 did not receive replies and 1 was the Chief Justice constitutes committees for allocating rejected.] administrative work. Under Section 4(1)(b)(viii), the public authorities are required to provide statement of 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requires committees. We recommend that the composition and a PIO to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously as scope of work of such committees be published under the possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt disclosure and be updated regularly. of the request. However, 2 out of the 3 applications fi led 4. We recommend that directory of employees and judges be with the High Court were never replied to by the PIO. prepared and published on the website and the link to this We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed to should be provided under the RTI disclosure.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 76 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

5. Under Section 4(1)(b)(xi), the disclosure provides a link to the fi nance department’s website to procure budget statements. We recommend that the High Court prepare a comprehensive budget statement which includes allocations and expenditures for the High Court and the District Courts under its jurisdiction and make it available under Section 4 (1)(b)(xi) and update it annually.

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. None of the 25 District Courts in Chhattisgarh, have made properly labelled disclosures under Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act on their websites. Only 5 District Court websites have provided information regarding the Public Information Offi cer & Appellate Authority, out of which 4 are in English and 1 in the local language. The remaining 20 other District Court websites have made no disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

77 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Delhi High Court

After analysing the the Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 as amended in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2016, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Delhi High Court.

15

Legality -55 2

Convenience -20 1

Practice 50 Key: 3 51 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for RTI Act information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made 1. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name mandatory. of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the 4. Form A of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant RTI application with the High Court, can be deposited. to make a declaration of bonafi de intent. We recommend Citizens require such information while making payments the deletion of such a requirement as it goes against through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very clearly mentions recommend the RTI Rules of the High Court be amended that citizens are not required to provide any reasons for to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose fi ling a RTI application. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar name the fee has to be deposited. Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) 2. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules restricts every RTI ruled against such requirements to make a declaration application to only 1 subject matter. The Rules state that regarding bonafi de intent. only questions which are consequential or related to 1 5. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of another can be asked in 1 application. It is recommended information that need not be shared with citizens under that the limit on the number of questions that can be asked the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 5(a) permits denial of be removed because such a restriction restricts the scope information on the ground that it pertains to duties and of the right to information as articulated by Section 6 of judicial functions and duties of the court, Rule 5(b) permits the RTI Act. Such limitations on the questions/subject that denial of information effecting any public activity or can be asked in an RTI application are vulnerable to being interest and Rule 5(c) affects the confi dentiality of judicial struck down for being ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. service examinations. We recommend that these rules be 3. Rule 3(a) of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory deleted because Section 8 of the RTI Act already prescribes to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a prescribed format. specifi c categories of documents that may be exempted The Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No. from the RTI Act. The CIC has already held in Suraj Prakash F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central Manchana v Public Information Offi cer, Tiz Hazari Courts (No. Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira v Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352)

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 78 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that public authorities E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures cannot prescribe new categories of exemption in their by the District Courts rules, over and beyond the exemptions in Section 8. 1. Out of the 14 District Courts in Delhi, only 1 District Court (Shahdara) website has head-wise proper disclosures B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on its website. Further RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for 8 District Court websites have provided information citizens regarding the Public Information Offi cer & Appellate 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on Authority in English which are in a separate RTI section. the High Court website in the local language. The remaining 5 District Court websites have made no 2. The High Court RTI Rules do not include electronic methods disclosures. of payments for RTI application fees. We recommend that 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide payments be permitted through digital means such as UPI, detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act e-payment gateways and NEFT transfers to bring it at par in both English and the local language. The information with the general provision given under Rule 6(c) of the provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”. C. Recommendations regarding practices of the Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI applications

[NOTE: Information was provided in reply to all the 3 applications fi led with the High Court]

1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even though our preferred mode of communication was email, we received all 3 replies via post. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the time taken to communicate between the authority and applicant is signifi cantly reduced.

D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court

1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing information under Section 4, the disclosures also be made available in the local language. 2. We recommend that the disclosure should also include the information regarding the powers and duties of employees. 3. The list of Rules provided under Section 4(1)(b)(v) needs to be made more comprehensive and ideally hyperlinks should be provided to the text of the Rules. 4. While the High Court has provided details about the budget allocations, details of PIO and the rules according to which employees and offi cers discharge their functions, the said disclosures do not cover information about the Delhi District Judiciary which is under the jurisdiction of the High Court. We recommend that the disclosures be revised to include such information.

79 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Gauhati High Court

After analysing the the Gauhati High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 as amended in 2011 and 2017, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Gauhati High Court.

21

Legality -80 13

Convenience -50 4

Practice 40 Key: 6 47 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI fi ling a RTI application. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) RTI Act ruled against such requirements to make a declaration regarding bonafi de intent. 1. Rule 3(b) of the High Court RTI Rules requires citizens to 4. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of limit each RTI application to only 1 particular item. It is information that need not be shared with citizens under recommended that the limit on the number of questions the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 4(v) permits denial of be removed because such a restriction restricts the scope information related to administrative or quasi-judicial of the right to information as articulated by Section 6 of decisions; Rule 5(a) permits denial of information that is the RTI Act. Such limitations on the questions/subject that not in the public domain and does not relate to juridical can be asked in an RTI application are vulnerable to being functions and duties of the Court, Rule 5(c) permits denial struck down for being ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. of information that relates to any public activity or interest 2. Rules 2 and 3 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it and Rule 5(d) permits denial of information that affects mandatory to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a the confi dentiality of judicial service examinations. We prescribed format. The Department of Personnel and recommend that these rules be deleted because Section Training (In OM No. F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 8 already prescribes specifi c categories of documents that 2007) and the Central Information Commission in may be exempted from the RTI Act. The CIC has already Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira v Vice-President’s Secretariat held in Suraj Prakash Manchana v Public Information Offi ce, (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) have reiterated that public Tiz Hazari Courts (No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) authorities cannot prescribe a mandatory form for citizens that public authorities cannot prescribe new categories of to make requests for information under the RTI Act. It is exemption in their rules, over and beyond the exemptions recommended that the use of a form be deleted or at the in Section 8. very least not be made mandatory. 5. Rule 8 of the High Court RTI Rules allows the Appellate 3. Form A of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant Authority to impose a penalty on the PIO for failing to to make a declaration of bonafi de intent. We recommend discharge his duty under the RTI Act at Rs. 50 per day the deletion of such a requirement as it goes against (beyond the 30 day limit) for failure to supply information Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very clearly mentions which is capped at a maximum of Rs. 500. In case of that citizens are not required to provide any reasons for

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 80 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

false information, the penalty is capped at Rs. 1000. We that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court recommend deleting this rule because the RTI Act allows RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central only the Information Commissioners to impose penalties Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. on errant PIOs. The RTI Act does not vest such powers in the Appellate Authorities under the Act. C. Recommendations regarding practices of the 6. Rule 4(ii) of the High Court RTI Rules require the PIO Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI to return those RTI applications in cases where the applications information may not be in the custody of the High Court. [NOTE: Information was provided in response to all the 3 We recommend deleting this rule because it is clearly applications fi led with the High Court.] ultra vires Section 6(3) of the RTI Act which requires public authorities to transfer a RTI application, that may not 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided pertain to records held by them, to the public authority in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be which is most likely to have the information required to provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even answer the queries of the citizen. though our preferred mode of communication was email, 7. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules require citizens to the rule was not followed in any of the 3 replies that we pay a fee of Rs. 50 for fi ling an appeal. We recommend received from the PIO of the High Court. We, therefore, deleting this rule because the RTI Act does not allow request that the PIO be instructed to reply in the method public authorities the power to charge for appeals. The preferred by the applicant. This is particularly benefi cial in CIC in the case of (CIC/ L.G. Dass v Patiala House Court the case of an email since the time taken to communicate AD/A/2013/001687SA) recommended to the Delhi High between the authority and applicant is signifi cantly Court that it delete the provision in the Delhi District reduced. Court (Right to Information) Rules which charged a fee for 2. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 hearing appeals. makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even citizens when the information is being provided to the applicant 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on under the RTI Act. It is thus, requested that the PIO be the High Court website in the local language of the State. instructed to provide the details of the First Appellate 2. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 5 as the Authority while replying to all RTI applications. None of per-page cost of providing information. We recommend the 3 replies we received from the High Court provided that the per-page cost of providing information be such details. reduced to Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures The Supreme Court charges the same fees as the Central by the High Court Government when it comes to the RTI Act. 1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing 3. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for information under Section 4 the disclosures also be made inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection available in the local language. be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour 2. The disclosure is fi led under notifi cations making it being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central diffi cult for the citizens to locate the disclosure. We also Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. recommend that the disclosure be periodically updated. 4. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists cash, demand The current set of disclosures were updated last in 2011. drafts and pay orders as methods of payment of RTI fees. We also recommend that the disclosures be archived on We recommend that payments be permitted through the website of the High Court. all the methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central 3. While the disclosure contains the list of rules and Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, regulations, a hyperlink to the text of the rules can be we recommend that Rule 9 be amended to include Indian provided for the same. Postal Orders and banker’s cheques in addition electronic 4. We recommend that the High Court prepare and publish means such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT under Section 4(1)(b) (xi) a comprehensive budget transfer as methods of payment. statement which include allocations and expenditures 5. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees for the High Court and the District Courts under its for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the jurisdiction and update it at regular intervals. High Court do not mention, the identifying documents required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend

81 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. The 16 District Courts in Arunachal Pradesh, 27 District Courts in Assam, 8 District Courts in Mizoram & 11 District Courts in Nagaland come under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Gauhati. None of these District Court websites have made any disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. 2. We recommend all District Courts be made to provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 82 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Gujarat High Court

After analyzing the the Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005 as amended in 2006 and 2007, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Gujarat High Court.

24

Legality -100 21

Convenience -60 5

Practice 27 Key: 9 42 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI 4. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a prescribed format. RTI Act The Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No. F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central 1. The High Court RTI Rules do not cover the District Courts. Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira We recommend that either, the High Court RTI Rules v Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) be amended to cover District Courts or alternatively, have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe a different set of RTI Rules can be formulated for the a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for District Courts. information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the mandatory. RTI application with the High Court, can be deposited. 5. Form A of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant Citizens require such information while making payments to make a declaration of bonafi de intent. We recommend through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We the deletion of such a requirement as it goes against recommend the RTI Rules of the High Court be amended Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very clearly mentions to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose that citizens are not required to provide any reasons for name the fee has to be deposited. fi ling a RTI application. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar 3. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the RTI ruled against such requirements to make a declaration application with the District Courts, can be deposited. regarding bonafi de intent. Citizens require such information while making payments 6. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. information that need not be shared with citizens. We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended Specifi cally, Rule 4(5)(a) permits denial of information not to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in in the public domain and which does not relate to judicial whose name the fee has to be deposited while fi ling RTI functions, Rule 4(5)(c) permits denial of information that applications with the District Courts. affects confi dentiality of examinations conducted by the High Court and Rule 4(6) permits denial of any information

83 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

that may be notifi ed by the court via any rule or regulation. 4. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for We recommend that this rule be deleted because Section inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection 8 already prescribes specifi c categories of documents that be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour may be exempted from the RTI Act. The CIC has already being free, to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central held in Suraj Prakash Manchana v Public Information Offi cer, Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 which have Tiz Hazari Courts (No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) been adopted by the Supreme Court. that public authorities cannot prescribe new categories of 5. The Rules of the High Court RTI Rules, do not prescribe any exemption in their rules, over and beyond the exemptions methods of payment for RTI applications. We recommend in Section 8. that payments be permitted through all the methods 7. Rule 6 of the High Court RTI Rules allows the Appellate listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to Authority to impose a penalty on the PIO for failing to Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, we recommend that discharge his duty under the RTI Act at Rs. 50 per day the Rules be amended to include cash, demand draft, (beyond the 30 day limit) for failure to supply information bankers’ cheque, court fee stamps, non-judicial stamps which is capped at a maximum of Rs. 500. In case of and Indian postal orders as modes of payment in addition false information, the penalty is capped at Rs. 1000. We to electronic means such as UPI, e-payment gateways and recommend deleting this rule because the RTI Act allows NEFT transfer as methods of payment. only the Information Commissioners to impose penalties 6. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees on errant PIOs. The RTI Act does not vest such powers in for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the the Appellate Authorities under the Act. High Court do not mention, the identifying documents 8. Rule 4(1) of the High Court RTI Rules require the PIO to required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend return those RTI applications for information that may not that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court be in the jurisdiction of the High Court. We recommend RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central deleting this rule because it is clearly ultra vires Section Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. 6(3) of the RTI Act, which requires public authorities to transfer an RTI application that may not pertain to records C. Recommendations regarding practices of the held by them, to the public authority which is most likely Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI to have the information required to answer the queries of applications the citizen. [NOTE: Information was provided in response to all the 3 9. Rule 4(7) of the High Court’s RTI Rules states that no applications fi led with the High Court] judicial offi cer can be compelled to appear in person before the State Information Commission. We believe this rule is 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided Section 18(3) of the RTI Act which specifi cally ultra vires in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be vests in the Central and State Information Commissions, provided in the form in which it is sought. However, the power to summon any person while inquiring into any even though our preferred mode of communication was matter under the RTI Act. mentioned as email, all the 3 replies that we received from the High Court were via post and not email. We, therefore, B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the request that the PIO be instructed to reply in the method RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for preferred by the applicant. This is particularly benefi cial in citizens the case of an email since the time taken to communicate 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on between the authority and applicant is signifi cantly the High Court website in the local language of the State. reduced. 2. Rule 8 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 50 as the 2. 1 of the 3 replies received from the High Court were less cost of fi ling an RTI application. We recommend that the than satisfactory because the application was transferred cost of fi ling an RTI application be reduced to Rs. 10 to make to a different authority by the High Court when the law it at par with the fee charged by the Central Government had created an obligation upon the High Court to legally RTI Rules, 2012, as well as the Supreme Court. maintain such information. It may be advisable for the 3. Rule 8 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 5 per High Court to offer regular training sessions for PIOs on page as photocopying charges for providing copies of any the record keeping practices within the institution as well documents requested under the RTI Act. We recommend as the implementation of the RTI Act. that the per-page cost of providing information be 3. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does reduced to Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. to transfer it to the relevant public authority within a The Supreme Court charges the same fees as the Central period of fi ve days. However, both of our RTI applications Government when it comes to the RTI Act. transferred by the Department of Justice to the High Court were rejected by the High Court on account of

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 84 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

non-payment of application fees. Requiring applicants to once again pay for transferred applications is in clear contravention of the RTI Act. Therefore, it is requested that PIO be instructed to not reject the application on account of the failure of payment of application fees.

D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court

1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing information under Section 4 the disclosures also be made available in the local language of the states. 2. While the disclosure gives a list of rules under Section 4(1) (b)(v), it does not include rules related to functioning of the District Judiciary which is under the jurisdiction of the High Court. We recommend the list of rules be made more comprehensive and a hyperlink to the text of the rules be provided for the same. 3. We recommend that the High Court prepare a comprehensive budget statement which include allocations and expenditures for the High Court and the District Courts under its jurisdiction and make it available under Section 4 (1)(b)(xi). 4. High Courts as public authorities have many documents under their control. We recommend that the High Court prepare a list of all the documents that it has under its control and also identify the custodian for each. This will assist the public in approaching the relevant offi ce for seeking documents.

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. Out of the 30 District Courts in Gujarat, only 1 District Court (Narmada) website has made properly labelled head-wise proper disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act which is in a separate RTI section. Of the remaining, 9 District Court websites have provided information regarding the Public Information Offi cer & Appellate Authority in English which are in a separate RTI section. The remaining 20 District Court websites have made no disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

85 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Himachal Pradesh High Court

After analysing the the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2013 as amended in 2015, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

8

Legality -40 5

Convenience -30 11

Practice 12 Key: 9 42 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI on the questions/subject that can be asked in an RTI Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the application are vulnerable to being struck down for being RTI Act ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. 4. Rule 4(1) of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory 1. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name to fi le RTI applications in a prescribed format. The of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No. F.No. RTI application, can be deposited for the High Court. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central Citizens require such information while making payments Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We v Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) recommend the RTI Rules of the High Court be amended have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for name the fee has to be deposited. information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the RTI mandatory. application with the District Courts, can be deposited. Citizens require such information while making payments B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended to citizens specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose name the fee has to be deposited while requesting for 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on information from District Courts. the High Court website in the local language of the State. 3. Rule 4(1) of the High Court RTI Rules requires that 2. Rule 5(3) of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 10 per separate applications be fi led for each subject and for 15 minutes as the cost for inspecting documents under each year. It is recommended that the limitations on the RTI Act. We recommend that the cost of inspection subject matter per application be removed because such be reduced to Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour being free a restriction restricts the scope of the right to information to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central Government as articulated by Section 6 of the RTI Act. Such limitations Right to Information Rules, 2012.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 86 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

3. Rule 5(3) of the High Court RTI Rules, includes treasury This information was an inadequate response to our RTI challans, bank drafts and Indian Postal Orders as methods application. We recommend that the High Court follow of payment of RTI fees. We recommend that payments be better record keeping practices and the PIO be sensitised permitted through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of to adjudicate the applications on their merit instead of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. providing information that is already publicly available. Therefore, we recommend that Rule 5(3) be amended to 5. Under Section 7 of the RTI Act, a request for information include bankers’ cheques and cash in addition to digital must be disposed within 30 days of receiving the modes of payment such as UPI, e-payment gateways and application. This includes submitting any documents that NEFT transfer as methods of payment. are requested for, although as per Section 7(3) of the RTI Act, the time taken for the applicant to pay the additional C. Recommendations regarding practices of the document fee is to be excluded from calculating the period Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI of 30 days. For the 1 application in response to which the applications High Court did supply the documents, it did so after 20 days of submission of document fee. As a best practice, [NOTE: Information was provided in response to all the 3 it is requested that the PIO be instructed to provide the applications that was fi led with the High Court.] documents within reasonable timelines.

1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be by the High Court provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even though our preferred mode of communication was 1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing email, we received all 3 of our replies via post rather than information under Section 4 the disclosures be also made email. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed available in the local language. to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This 2. The disclosure cannot be found easily on the website; is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the we recommend that the disclosure be fi led as Section 4 time taken to communicate between the authority and Disclosure and a separate link be placed on the website for applicant is signifi cantly reduced. the same. 2. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 3. The disclosure states that the process of digitization of makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the documents is in process. We recommend that the High First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. Court prepare a list of all the documents that it has under Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to its control and also identify the custodian for each. This provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even will assist the public in approaching the relevant offi ce for when the information is being provided to the applicant seeking documents. under the RTI Act. It is thus requested that the PIO be 4. Under Section 4(1)(b)(viii), the public authorities are instructed to provide the details of the First Appellate required to provide statement of committees. We Authority while replying to all RTI applications. Neither of recommend that the composition and scope of work of the 3 replies received from the High Court provided such such committees be published under the disclosure and be details. regularly updated. 3. 2 out of the 3 applications fi led contained multiple 5. We recommend that directory of employees and judges be questions. However, the replies to these 2 RTI applications prepared and published on the website and the link to this were not question wise. It is requested that the PIO be should be provided under the RTI disclosure. instructed to provide question wise replies to enable an applicant to match the responses to individual questions E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures and prevent PIOs from side-stepping specifi c questions by by the District Courts providing a consolidated response. 1. None of the 11 District Courts have made properly labelled 4. 2 of the 3 replies that we received from the PIO of the disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their High Court, were unsatisfactory. None of the questions websites. All 11 District Court websites have provided asked in an application seeking information regarding some information regarding the Public Information Offi cer the implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 & Appellate Authority in English which are available in a were replied to by the PIO of the High Court. Another separate section on their websites. application sought information on the budgetary 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide allocations, expenditure, saving statement and sums detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act received under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme. However, in both English and the local language. The information the reply received from the High Court merely attached the budget portion of the Section 4(1)(b) disclosures, which was already available on the High Court website.

87 WWW.LIVELAW.IN provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts websites under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 88 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Jharkhand High Court

After analysing the the Jharkhand High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 as amended in 2011 and 2012, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Jharkhand High Court.

2

Legality -15 13

Convenience -50 12

Practice 10 Key: 8 45 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for RTI Act citizens

1. Rule 9(a)(i) of the High Court RTI Rules requires the 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on applicant to make a declaration of bona-fi de intent. the High Court website in the local language of the State. We recommend the deletion of such a requirement as 2. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 5 as the it goes against Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very per-page cost of providing information. We recommend clearly mentions that citizens are not required to provide that the per-page cost of providing information be any reasons for fi ling an RTI application. The CIC in the reduced to Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the case of Ajit Kumar Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/ Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. PA/A/2009/000001) ruled against such requirements The Supreme Court charges the same fees as the Central to make a declaration regarding bona-fi de intent of the Government when it comes to the RTI Act. applicant. 3. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 50 as 2. The High Court RTI Rules prescribes an additional the per hour cost for inspection. We recommend that the category of information that need not be shared with cost of inspection be reduced to Rs. 5 per hour, with the citizens under the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 9(a)(v) permits fi rst hour being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the the denial of information which is “not otherwise against Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. any law or practice prevailing in the material regard”. We 4. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules, states that the only recommend that this rule be deleted because Section 8 methods of payment of RTI fees is via adhesive court fee already prescribes specifi c categories of documents that stamps. We recommend that payments be permitted may be exempted from the RTI Act. The CIC has already through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central held in Suraj Prakash Manchana v Public Information Offi cer, Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, Tiz Hazari Courts (No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) we recommend that Rule 3 be amended to include cash, that public authorities cannot prescribe new categories of Indian Postal Orders (IPOs), demand draft and bankers’ exemption in their rules, over and beyond the exemptions cheque in addition to digital modes such as UPI, e-payment in Section 8. gateways and NEFT transfer as methods of payment.

89 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

5. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees D. Recommendations regarding Section 4: Disclosures for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the by the High Court High Court do not mention, the identifying documents 1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend information under Section 4 the disclosures also be made that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court available in the local language. RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central 2. We recommend that the High Court update the disclosure Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. at regular intervals. The current disclosures were last updated in 2014. We also recommend that the disclosures C. Recommendations regarding practices of the be archived on the website of the High Court. Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI 3. While the High Court has provided budgetary allocations applications and details of the PIOs applicable to the High Court; we [NOTE: 1 of the 3 replies received was rejected by the High recommend that the disclosure be revised to also include Court.] these details with regard to the District Judiciary under the jurisdiction of the High Court. 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided 4. While the disclosure contains the list of rules and in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be regulations, a hyperlink to the text of the rules can be provided in the form in which it is sought. However, provided for the same. even though our preferred mode of communication was email, all 3 replies received from this High Court were E. Recommendations regarding Section 4: Disclosures via post and not email. We, therefore, request that the by the District Courts PIO be instructed to reply in the method preferred by the 1. None of the 24 District Courts in Jharkhand have made applicant. This is particularly benefi cial in the case of an properly labelled disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the email since the time taken to communicate between the RTI Act on their websites. 3 District Court websites have authority and applicant is signifi cantly reduced. provided information regarding the Public Information 2. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Offi cer & Appellate Authority in English which are ina makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the separate RTI section. The remaining 21 District Court First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. websites have made no disclosures. Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act when the information is being provided to the applicant in both English and the local language. The information under the RTI Act. It is thus, requested that the PIO be provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts instructed to provide the details of the First Appellate website under a separate section that is labelled as Authority while replying to all RTI applications. None of “Disclosures under the RTI Act”. the 3 replies received from the High Court provided such details 3. Of the 2 replies from the High Court which provided information, 1 was not to the satisfaction of the applicant. The RTI application in question sought audit reports of the High Court for a period of fi ve years. Poor photocopies of an audit report covering 3 years were provided to the applicant. The information was therefore illegible and incomplete. These issues could have been remedied if the High Court followed better record keeping practices and the PIO was sensitised to follow simple requirements such as providing legible documentation to applicants. 4. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period of fi ve fi ve days. However, neither of the 2 applications transferred by the Department of Justice to the Jharkhand High Court were replied to at all. It is requested that the PIO be instructed to respond to transfer applications within 30 days of receiving the application akin to any application that is fi led with it at the fi rst instance.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 90 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Karnataka High Court

After analysing the Karnataka High Court Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 as amended in 2012, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Jharkhand High Court.

3

Legality -20 13

Convenience -50 1

Practice 50 Key: 14 25 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI reduced to Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. RTI Act The Supreme Court charges the same fees as the Central Government when it comes to the RTI Act. 1. The High Court RTI Rules do not cover the District Courts. 3. Rule 4(d) of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 5 per We recommend that either the High Court RTI Rules 15 minutes as the cost for inspection of fi les under the RTI be amended to cover District Courts or alternatively, Act. We recommend that the cost of inspection be reduced a different set of RTI Rules can be formulated for the to Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour being free to bring it District Courts. at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central Government Right to 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name Information Rules, 2012. of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the RTI 4. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists cash, Indian application with the District Courts, can be deposited. Postal Orders, bankers’ cheques and pay orders as the Citizens require such information while making payments possible methods of payment of RTI fees. We recommend through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. that payments be permitted through all the methods We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, we recommend that whose name the fee has to be deposited while fi ling RTI Rule 3 be amended to include demand drafts as a mode of applications with the District Court. payment. The High Court may also consider adding digital modes of payments such as UPI, e-payment gateways and B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the NEFT transfer as methods of payment. RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for 5. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI citizens fees for below poverty line applicants. However, the RTI 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on Rules of the High Court do not mention, the identifying the High Court website in the local language of the State. documents required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We 2. Rule 4(a) of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 3 as the recommend that a clear criterion be prescribed under the per-page cost of providing information. We recommend High Court RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the that the per-page cost of providing information be Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012.

91 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

C. Recommendations regarding practices of the of these disclosures is in the local language, while 3 are in Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI English and the remaining 9 are in both the local language applications and English. 2. A further 5 District Court websites have only provided [NOTE: Information was provided in response to all the information regarding the Public Information Offi cer & 3 applications fi led with the High Court to the complete Appellate Authority in English which are in a separate RTI satisfaction of the applicants.] section. Out of these, 2 disclosures are in English while 3 District Court websites have disclosures in both the local 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided language and English which are all in a separate RTI section. in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be 12 other District Court websites have no disclosures. provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even 3. We recommend that all District Courts should provide though our preferred mode of communication was email, detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act all 3 replies from the High Court were received via post in both English and the local language. The information rather than email. We, therefore, request that the PIO provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts be instructed to reply in the method preferred by the website under a separate section that is labelled as applicant. This is particularly benefi cial in the case of an “Disclosures under the RTI Act”. email since the time taken to communicate between the authority and applicant is signifi cantly reduced.

D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court

1. We found that the disclosure was appended to the RTI Rules of the High Court, thereby making it diffi cult for the citizens to locate it. We recommend that the disclosure be made available under a separate head on the website. 2. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing information under Section 4 the disclosures also be made available in the local language. 3. Under Section 4(1)(b)(viii), the public authorities are required to provide statement of committees. We recommend that the composition and scope of work of such committees be published under the disclosure and be regularly updated. 4. We recommend that directory of employees and judges be prepared and published on the website and the link to this should be provided under the RTI disclosure. 5. We recommend that the High Court prepare and publish under Section 4(1)(b)(xi), a comprehensive budget statement which include allocations and expenditures for the High Court and the District Courts under its jurisdiction and update it at regular intervals. 6. High Courts as public authorities have many documents under their control. We recommend that the High Court prepare a list of all the documents that it has under its control and also identify the custodian for each. This will assist the public in approaching the relevant offi ce for seeking documents.

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. Of the 30 District Courts in Karnataka, only 13 District Court websites have made properly labelled disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act which are available in a separate RTI section on their respective websites. Only 1

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 92 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Kerala High Court

After analysing the Kerala High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 as amended in 2012, 2014 and 2015, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Kerala High Court.

8

Legality -40 2

Convenience -20 1

Practice 50 Key: 1

Rank 3 Section 4 59

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the RTI Act use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made mandatory. 1. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name 4. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of of the authority in whose name the fee, for fi ling the information that need not be shared with citizens under the RTI application, can be deposited. Citizens require such RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 12 permits denial of information information while making payments through Indian Postal on the ground that it is related to a judicial proceeding and Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We recommend the RTI Rule 13 permit denial of information on the grounds that Rules of the High Court be amended to specifi cally provide the request relates to a policy matter under consideration. the name of the authority in whose name the fee has to be We recommend these rules be deleted because Section deposited. 8 of the RTI Act already prescribes specifi c categories 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name of documents that may be exempted from the RTI Act. of the authority in whose name the fee, for fi ling the RTI The CIC has already held in Suraj Prakash Manchanda application with the District Courts, can be deposited. v. Public Information Offi cer, Tiz Hazari Courts (No. CIC/ Citizens require such information while making payments SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that public authorities through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. cannot prescribe new categories of exemption in their We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended rules, over and beyond the exemptions in Section 8. to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose name the fee has to be deposited while fi ling RTI applications with the District Court. B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the 3. Rule 5 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a prescribed format. citizens The Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No. F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central 1. We recommend that the High Court RTI Rules be Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira published on the High Court website in the local language v. Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) of the State. have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe

93 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2. Rule 5 of the High Court RTI Rules do not state the D. Recommendations regarding Section 4(1)(b) method of payment of the RTI fee. Instead, these rules Disclosures by the High Court require applicants to pay a fee as notifi ed by either the 1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing High Court or the State Government. Since the High Court information under Section 4, the disclosures also be made has not issued a notifi cation pertaining to fees payable available in the local language. under the RTI Act, we presumed that the High Court was 2. While the disclosure contains the list of rules and following the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of regulations, a hyperlink to the text of the rules can be Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006 that were notifi ed by the State provided for the same. Government of Kerala. In specifi c, Rule 3(2) of the Kerala 3. Under Section 4(1)(b)(viii), the public authorities are State Government RTI Rules recognise the following required to provide a statement of committees. We as methods of payment of RTI fees: court fee stamps, recommend that the composition and scope of work of remitting amount in the Government treasury, cash against such committees be published under the disclosure and be proper receipt, demand drafts, bankers’ cheques and pay regularly updated. orders. Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) are not mentioned as a method of payment. In Clause 3 of a separate document called 'General Guidelines - High Court', available on the E. Recommendations regarding Section 4(1)(b) website of the Kerala High Court, it has been mentioned Disclosures by the District Courts that the fee may be paid through court fee stamps, demand drafts, bankers’ cheques, money orders, IPO, e-IPOs and 1. Since the District Courts in Kerala & Union Territory of cash. This document has not been notifi ed under the come under the jurisdiction of the High RTI Act but rather seems to be in the nature of a general Court of Kerala, they have been included in this analysis. manual. As such it cannot be considered to be a binding 2. Our research found that all 14 District Courts have made legal instrument. Clause 3 of this manual is in contradiction properly labelled disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the to the state government’s RTI Rules on the issue of IPOs. RTI Act on their websites which are available in a separate It is thus recommended that the High Court RTI Rules be RTI section. However, only 3 District Courts have made amended to resolve all contradictions and clearly mention the disclosures in both English and in the local language. the methods of payment that are recognised. IPOs should Of the remaining, 10 disclosures are in English and 1 is in be mentioned as a mode of payment since they are the the local language. most convenient mode of payment for most citizens. This 3. District Courts in Kerala have the most elaborate will bring the High Court Rules at par with the Central disclosures in the country - including disclosures for Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 which various Courts under the District Courts such as JMFCs, have also been adopted by the Supreme Court. We also MACT, Family Courts, etc. However, no disclosures have recommend that the High Court adopt digital modes of been provided by the 1 District Court in Lakshadweep. payment such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT. 4. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information C. Recommendations regarding practices of the provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI website under a separate section that is labelled as applications “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

[NOTE: Information was provided in response to all the applications fi led with the High Court to the complete satisfaction of the applicants.]

1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even though our preferred mode of communication was email, the rule was not followed in any of the 3 replies that we received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the time taken to communicate between the authority and applicant is signifi cantly reduced.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 94 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Madhya Pradesh High Court

After analysing the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 as amended in 2015 and 2017, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts, covered under its jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

18

Legality -60 13

Convenience -50 19

Practice -40 Key: 12 35 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira RTI Act v. Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe 1. The High Court RTI Rules do not cover the District Courts. a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for We recommend that either, the High Court RTI Rules information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the be amended to cover District Courts or alternatively, use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made a different set of RTI Rules can be formulated for the mandatory. District Courts. 5. Form A of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name to make a declaration of bona-fi de intent. Additionally, of the authority in whose name the fee for fi ling the RTI the form also requires that the applicant provide a application with the District Courts, can be deposited. photograph, father’s name, age and occupation along Citizens require such information while making payments with details of the information sought. Additionally, for through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. online applications made on the web portal there is a We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended requirement to additionally upload a copy of an id card. to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in We recommend the deletion of all the above requirements whose name the fee has to be deposited when fi ling RTI as it goes against Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very applications with the District Courts. clearly mentions that citizens are not required to provide 3. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes a limit of 1 any reasons for fi ling an RTI application or any other item per RTI application. It is recommended that such a information than those required for contacting him. limit be removed because it restricts the scope of the right The CIC (in the case of Ajit Kumar Modi v. High Court of to information as articulated by Section 6 of the RTI Act. Jharkhand CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) has also, specifi cally, Such limitations on the items that can be asked in an RTI ruled against such requirements to make a declaration application are vulnerable to being struck down for being regarding bona-fi de intent. ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. 6. Rule 7(2) of the High Court RTI Rules require citizens to 4. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory pay a fee of Rs. 50 for fi ling an appeal. We recommend to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a prescribed format. deleting this rule because the RTI Act does not allow The Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No.

95 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

public authorities the power to charge a fee for appeals. The guidelines for the portal clearly mention that the RTI The CIC in the case of L.G. Dass v. Patiala House Court (CIC/ application can be fi led post working hours in which case AD/A/2013/001687SA) recommended to the Delhi High they would be processed only on the next day. Court that it delete the provision in the Delhi District Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 which charged a fee for hearing appeals. C. Recommendations regarding practices of the Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the applications RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for [NOTE: All 3 applications fi led with the High Court were citizens rejected.] 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on the High Court website in the local language of the State. 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided 2. Rule 7 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 50 as in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be the cost of fi ling an RTI application. We recommend that provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even the cost of fi ling an RTI application be reduced to Rs. though our preferred mode of communication was email, 10 to make it at par with the fee charged by the Central the rule was not followed in any of the 3 replies that we Government RTI Rules, 2012 which have also been received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed adopted by the Supreme Court of India. to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This 3. Rule 7 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 5 as the is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the per-page cost of providing photocopies of information. time taken to communicate between the authority and We recommend that the per-page cost of providing applicant is signifi cantly reduced. information be reduced to Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 2. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 4 of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the 2012 which have also been adopted by the Supreme Court First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. of India. Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to 4. Rule 7 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 25 provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even as the cost per hour or a fraction thereof as the cost for when the information is being provided to the applicant inspection for every record inspected. We recommend under the RTI Act. None of the 3 replies received from the that the cost of inspection be reduced to Rs. 5 per hour, High Court provided such details. It is thus requested that with the fi rst hour being free to bring it at par with Rule the PIO be instructed to provide the details of the First 4(f) of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, Appellate Authority while replying to all RTI applications. 2012 which have also been adopted by the Supreme Court. 3. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does 5. Rule 7 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists non-judicial not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to stamps and treasury challans as the only methods of transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period payment of RTI fees. We recommend that payments be of fi ve days. However, 2 of our RTI applications that were permitted through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of transferred by the Department of Justice to the High Court the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 were rejected by the PIO of the High Court on account of which have also been adopted by the Supreme Court of non-payment of application fees. Requiring applicants India. Therefore, we recommend that Rule 7 be amended to once again pay for transferred applications is in clear to include cash against proper receipt, demand drafts contravention of Section 6(3). Therefore, it is requested and Indian Postal Orders in addition to electronic means that the PIO be instructed to not request payment for such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT transfer as transferred RTI applications. methods of payment. 6. While the Madhya Pradesh High Court is the only High Court to provide for an online RTI application process D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures we found that this online process is not user friendly. For by the High Court example, the bar against the usage of special characters 1. The disclosure is available in the offi cial language of the unnecessarily complicates the process of fi ling applications state, which is a good practice for increasing access to through the portal. Further, the online application portal information. does not permit the submission of an online application 2. The disclosure made by the High Court under Section 4(1) after the working hours. This is a strange prohibition (b)(viii) states that committees are not relevant to the given that the entire process of fi ling is automated and functioning of the High Court, however under Section 4(1) does not involve manual interventions by the employees. (b)(iii) the disclosure provides the list of committees. We

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 96 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

recommend that this contradiction be reconciled and that the disclosure be updated to reveal information about the currently active committees. 3. The list of Rules provided under Section 4(1)(b)(v) needs to be made more comprehensive and ideally hyperlinks should be provided to the text of the Rules. 4. We recommend that directory of employees and judges be prepared and published on the website and the link to this should be provided under the RTI disclosure. 5. We recommend that the High Court prepare and publish under Section 4(1)(b) (xi) a comprehensive budget statement which include allocations and expenditures for the High Courts and the District Courts under its jurisdiction and update it at regular intervals.

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. Of the 50 District Courts in Madhya Pradesh, only the website of the District Court at Narsinghpur has provided information regarding the Public Information Offi cer & Appellate Authority. This information is in English and available in a separate RTI section. The remaining 49 District Court websites have made no disclosures under the RTI Act. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

97 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Madras High Court

After analysing the Madras High Court Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2007 as amended in 2014, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Madras High Court.

1

Legality -10 21

Convenience -60 17

Practice -30 7 46 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI 3. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules which prescribes Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the fee does not prescribe a per-page cost of providing RTI Act information. We recommend that the per-page cost of providing information be clearly mentioned and set at Rs. 1. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the Central Government of the authority in whose name the fee for fi ling the RTI Right to Information Rules, 2012 which have also been application with the District Courts, can be deposited. adopted by the Supreme Court of India. Citizens require such information while making payments 4. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended to be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central name the fee has to be deposited. Government Right to Information Rules, 2012, which have B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for 5. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules lists cash, demand citizens draft, court fee stamps, treasury challans and Indian Postal Orders as methods of payment of RTI fees. We recommend 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on that payments be permitted through all the methods the High Court website in the local language of the State. listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to 2. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 100 for Information Rules, 2012 which have also been adopted request of any copy of a record in addition to Rs. 10 as the by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, we recommend cost of fi ling an RTI application. We recommend that the that Rule 4 be amended to include banker’s cheques. additional requirement to pay Rs. 100 be removed to make In addition, we recommend that the High Court allow it at par with the fee charged by the Central Government payment through digital modes such as UPI, e-payment RTI Rules, 2012 which have also been adopted by the gateways and NEFT transfer as methods of payment. Supreme Court of India. 6. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the High Court do not mention the identifying documents

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 98 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend 5. Under Section 7 of the RTI Act, a request for information that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court must be disposed within 30 days of receiving the RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central application. This includes submitting any documents that Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have are requested for, although as per Section 7(3) of the RTI also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. Act, the time taken for the applicant to pay the additional document fee is to be excluded from calculating the period C. Recommendations regarding practices of the of 30 days. The High Court, however, supplied documents Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI after 20 days of submission of document fee. As a best applications practice, it is requested that the PIO be instructed to provide the documents within reasonable timelines. [NOTE: Of the 3 applications fi led with the High Court, 1 was 6. 1 of our 3 RTI applications were rejected on what we rejected, 1 was not replied to and partial information was considered to be mala-fi de grounds. Our application provided in response to the third]. had sought audit statements of the High Court. The application was rejected on the grounds that it was not 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states “information” as defi ned by the RTI Act. Instead it was that the PIO is to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously classifi ed as “personal information of the O/o The Registrar as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the General”. Under no circumstance, can audit statements be receipt of the request. However, of the 3 applications we considered personal information of the Registrar General. had fi led with the High Court, 1 was not replied to at all Other High Courts, in reply to our applications did and 1 reply was received after 40 days of submission of provide us the audit reports. It is requested that the PIO the application. We, therefore, request that the PIO be be sensitised against mis-utilising the exemptions under instructed to reply to all RTI applications within 30 days Section 8 of the RTI Act. of receipt of the application. To ensure the disposal of applications in a timely manner we request the High Court D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures to revisit its procedures for disposing RTI applications to by the High Court remove bottlenecks and streamline procedures. 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided 1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be information under Section 4, the disclosures also be made provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even available in the local language. though our preferred mode of communication was email, 2. The list of Rules provided under Section 4(1)(b)(v) needs the rule was not followed in both the replies that we to be made more comprehensive and ideally hyperlinks received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed should be provided to the text of the Rules. to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This 3. Under Section 4(1)(b)(viii), the public authorities are is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the required to provide statement of committees. We time taken to communicate between the authority and recommend that the composition and scope of work of applicant is signifi cantly reduced. such committees be published under the disclosure and be 3. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 updated regularly. makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to by the District Courts provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even 1. The District Courts in Tamil Nadu & Union Territory of when the information is being provided to the applicant Puducherry come under the jurisdiction of the Madras under the RTI Act. It is thus requested that the PIO be High Court. instructed to provide the details of the First Appellate 2. Of the 32 District Court websites in Tamil Nadu, only 1 Authority while replying to all RTI applications. The 2 District Court (Ariyalur) website has provided information replies we received from the High Court did not provide regarding the Public Information Offi cer & Appellate such details. Authority in both English & the local language. The 4. 1 of the replies we received did not contain a question wise remaining 31 District Court websites have made no reply. The other application that was replied to did not disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. contain multiple questions that would require a question 3. None of the 4 District Court websites in Puducherry have wise reply. It is requested that the PIO be instructed to made disclosures under the RTI Act. provide question wise replies to enable an applicant to 4. We recommend that all District Courts should provide match the responses to individual questions and prevent detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act PIOs from side-stepping specifi c questions by providing a in both English and the local language. The information consolidated response.

99 WWW.LIVELAW.IN provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 100 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Manipur High Court

The following is the analysis of the Gauhati High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 as amended in 2011 and 2017 which we presume were adopted by the Manipur High Court as the link on its website leads to the Gauhati High Court (RTI) Rules, 2008. We also analysed the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Manipur High Court.

21

Legality -80 13

Convenience -50 9

Practice 13 Key: 16 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI fi ling a RTI application. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) RTI Act ruled against such requirements to make a declaration regarding bonafi de intent. 1. Rule 3(b) of the High Court RTI Rules requires citizens to 4. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of limit every RTI application to only 1 particular item. It is information that need not be shared with citizens under recommended that the limit on the number of questions the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 4(v) permits denial of be removed because such a restriction restricts the scope information related to administrative or quasi-judicial of the right to information as articulated by Section 6 of decisions; Rule 5(a) permits denial of information that is the RTI Act. Such limitations on the questions/subject that not in the public domain and does not relate to juridical can be asked in an RTI application are vulnerable to being functions and duties of the Court, Rule 5(c) permits denial struck down for being ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. of information that relates to any public activity or interest 2. Rules 2 and 3 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it and Rule 5(d) permits denial of information that affects mandatory to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a the confi dentiality of judicial service examinations. We prescribed form. The Department of Personnel and recommend that these rules be deleted because Section Training (In OM No. F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 8 already prescribes specifi c categories of documents that 2007) and the Central Information Commission in may be exempted from the RTI Act. The CIC has already Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira v. Vice-President’s Secretariat held in Suraj Prakash Manchana v Public Information Offi ce, (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) have reiterated that public Tiz Hazari Courts (No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) authorities cannot prescribe a mandatory form for citizens that public authorities cannot prescribe new categories of to make requests for information under the RTI Act. It is exemption in their rules, over and beyond the exemptions recommended that the use of a form be deleted or at the in Section 8. very least not be made mandatory. 5. Rule 8 of the High Court RTI Rules allows the Appellate 3. Form A of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant Authority to impose a penalty on the PIO for failing to to make a declaration of bonafi de intent. We recommend discharge his duty under the RTI Act at Rs. 50 per day for the deletion of such a requirement as it goes against failure to supply information beyond 30 days and puts a Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very clearly mentions maximum limit of Rs. 500. In case of false information, the that citizens are not required to provide any reasons for

101 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

penalty is capped at Rs. 1000. We recommend deleting required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend this rule because the RTI Act allows only the Information that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court Commissioners to impose penalties on errant PIOs. RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central The RTI Act does not vest such powers in the Appellate Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. Authorities under the Act. 6. Rule 4(ii) of the High Court RTI Rules require the PIO C. Recommendations regarding practices of the to return those RTI applications in cases where the Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI information may not be in the custody of the High Court. applications We recommend deleting this rule because it is clearly [NOTE: Some information was provided in response to all the 3 Section 6(3) of the RTI Act which requires public ultra vires applications fi led with the High Court.] authorities to transfer an RTI application that may not pertain to records held by them, to the public authority 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided which is most likely to have the information required to in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be answer the queries of the citizen. provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even 7. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules require citizens to though our preferred mode of communication was email, pay a fee of Rs. 50 for fi ling an appeal. We recommend the rule was not followed in any of the 3 replies that we deleting this rule because the RTI Act does not allow received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed public authorities the power to charge a fee for appeals. to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This The CIC in the case of (CIC/ L.G. Dass v. Patiala House Court is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the AD/A/2013/001687SA) recommended to the Delhi High time taken to communicate between the authority and Court that it delete the provision in the Delhi District applicant is signifi cantly reduced. Court (Right to Information) Rules which charged a fee for 2. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 hearing appeals. makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even citizens when the information is being provided to the applicant 1. We recommend that the High Court RTI Rules be under the RTI Act. Only 2 out of the 3 replies received from published on the High Court website in the local language the High Court provided such details. It is thus requested of the State. that the PIO be instructed to provide the details of the First 2. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 5 as the Appellate Authority while replying to all RTI applications. per-page cost of providing information. We recommend 3. 1 of the replies that we received was not to our that the per-page cost of providing information be satisfaction. The application in question sought reduced to Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the budgetary estimates, allocations, saving and expenditure Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. statements and allocation under the Centrally Sponsored The Supreme Court charges the same fees as the Central Scheme (CSS). However, this application was incorrectly Government when it comes to the RTI Act. transferred to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department. 3. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for The correct public authority that would be required inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection to maintain this information would have been the be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour High Court itself. We recommend that the High Court being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central follow better record keeping practices to ensure that Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. information, required to be maintained by the High Court, 4. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules, does not list Indian can be accessed by citizens seeking such information. Postal Orders or bankers cheques as methods of payment Additionally, we recommend that the PIO be sensitised of RTI fees. We recommend that payments be permitted to sparingly utilise the transfer provision provided under through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, 4. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does we recommend that Rule 9 be amended to include Indian not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to Postal Orders and banker’s cheques. In addition, the High transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period Court may also recognize payments through digital modes of fi ve days. However, both the applications transferred by of payment such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT the Department of Justice to the High Court were never transfer as methods of payment. replied to by the High Court. It is requested that the PIO 5. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees be instructed to respond to transferred applications within for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the 30 days of receiving the application akin to any other RTI High Court do not mention, the identifying documents application that is fi led with it at the fi rst instance.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 102 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court

1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure on the website of the High Court. We recommend that the High Court prepare a disclosure as required under Section 4(1)(b) and make it available on the website of the High Court. Further the High Court must update the disclosure annually.

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. None of the 7 District Courts in Manipur have made any disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their websites. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

103 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Meghalaya High Court

After analysing the High Court of Meghalaya (Right to Information) rules, 2013 as amended in 2018, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Meghalaya High Court.

23

Legality -85 21

Convenience -60 7

Practice 15 Key: 16 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the ruled against such requirements to make a declaration RTI Act regarding bonafi de intent. 4. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of 1. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules limits the number information that need not be shared with citizens under of items of information that can be asked to 1 per RTI the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 5(a) permits the denial application. It is recommended that such a provision be of information on the ground that it is not in the public removed because such a limit restricts the scope of the domain as well as information that pertains to juridical right to information as articulated by Section 6 of the RTI functions and duties of the court, Rule 5(c) permits Act. Such limitations are vulnerable to being struck down denial of information that relates to any public activity or for being ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. interest and Rule 5(d) permits denial of information that 2. Rule 3 and Rule 7 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it affects confi dentiality of judicial service examinations. mandatory to fi le RTI applications or appeals, respectively, Additionally Rule 6 states that the information that can be in a prescribed format. The Department of Personnel provided is also subject to the restrictions and prohibitions and Training (In OM No. F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 contained in the rules and regulations framed, notifi ed or March 2007) and the Central Information Commission in implemented by the High Court. Further as per Rule 4(v), Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira v. Vice-President’s Secretariat information related to administrative or quasi-judicial (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) have reiterated that public decisions is made available only for affected persons. We authorities cannot prescribe a mandatory form for citizens recommend that the rules be deleted because Section to make requests for information under the RTI Act. It is 8 of the RTI Act already prescribes specifi c categories recommended that the use of a form be deleted or at the of documents that may be exempted from the RTI Act. very least not be made mandatory. The CIC has already held in Suraj Prakash Manchanda 3. Form A of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant v. Public Information Offi cer, Tiz Hazari Courts (No. CIC/ to make a declaration of bonafi de intent. We recommend SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that public authorities the deletion of such a requirement as it goes against cannot prescribe new categories of exemption in their Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very clearly mentions rules, over and beyond the exemptions in Section 8. that citizens are not required to provide any reasons for fi ling a RTI application. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 104 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

5. Rule 8(i) of the High Court RTI Rules allows the Appellate 5. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists cash, demand Authority to impose a penalty on the PIO for failing to draft or pay order as methods of payment of RTI fees. We discharge his duty under the RTI Act at Rs. 50 per day and recommend that payments be permitted through all the puts a maximum limit of Rs. 500. Similarly Rule 8(ii) allows methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government the Appellate Authority to impose a penalty of up to Rs. Right to Information Rules, 2012 which have also been 1,000 on any person supplying information found to be adopted by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, we false in material particular. We recommend deleting these recommend that Rule 9 be amended to include bankers’ rules because the RTI Act allows only the Information cheques and Indian Postal Orders in addition to electronic Commissioners to impose penalties on errant PIOs. means such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT The RTI Act does not vest such powers in the Appellate transfer as methods of payment. Authorities under the Act. 6. The RTI Act allows for exemption/reduction of payment of 6. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules require the PIO to return RTI fees for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of those RTI applications for information that may not be the High Court do not mention the identifying documents within the jurisdiction of the High Court. We recommend required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend deleting this rule because it is clearly ultra vires Section that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court 6(3) of the RTI Act which requires public authorities to RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central transfer RTI applications that may not pertain to records Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have held by them, to the public authority which is most likely also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. to have the information required to answer the queries of the citizen. C. Recommendations regarding practices of the 7. Rule 9B of the High Court RTI Rules require citizens to Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI pay a fee of Rs 50 for fi ling an appeal. We recommend applications deleting this rule because the RTI Act does not allow [NOTE: All the 3 applications fi led with the High Court were public authorities the power to charge fee for appeals. replied to and some information was provided in response to The CIC (in the case of (CIC/ L.G. Dass v. Patiala House Court all 3 applications.] AD/A/2013/001687SA) recommended to the Delhi High Court that it delete the provision in the Delhi District 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 which charged a in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be fee for hearing appeals. provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even though our preferred mode of communication was email, B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the the rule was not followed in any of the 3 replies that we RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed citizens to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the the High Court website in the local language of the state. time taken to communicate between the authority and 2. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 50 as applicant is signifi cantly reduced. the cost of fi ling an RTI application. We recommend that 2. Section 7(8)(iii) of the RTI Act makes it mandatory for PIOs the cost of fi ling an RTI application be reduced to Rs. to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority 10 to make it at par with the fee charged by the Central while rejecting RTI applications. Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) Government RTI Rules, 2012 that have also been adopted makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the by the Supreme Court of India. First Appellate Authority even when the information is 3. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 5 as the being provided to the applicant under the RTI Act. None of per-page cost of providing information. We recommend the 3 replies received from the High Court provided such that the per-page cost of providing information be details. It is thus requested that the PIO be instructed to reduced to Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the Central provide the details of the First Appellate Authority while Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have replying to all RTI applications. also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. 3. 2 of the 3 replies received from the High Court were not 4. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for to our satisfaction. The application which sought budget inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection estimates, allocations and expenditure statements relating be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour to the High Court and District Judiciary was responded to being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central by the PIO but only 2 of the 6 questions were replied to Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have by the PIO. 1 of the other replies pertaining to a request also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. for audit reports was also not satisfactory because the PIO stated that he did not have these reports as they were not within his jurisdiction. This is a strange response because

105 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

other High Courts did provide us with their audit reports. In any instance, if the High Court did not have audit reports, the PIO should have transferred the application to the public authority which did maintain such audit reports of the High Court’s fi nances. We recommend that the High Court adopt better record keeping practices and that the PIO be sensitised through training sessions so that they are aware of all their duties including the obligations to transfer applications to relevant public authorities under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court

1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure on the website of the High Court. We recommend that the High Court prepare a disclosure as required under Section 4(1)(b) and make it available on the website of the High Court. Further the High Court must update the disclosure annually.

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. None of the 7 District Courts in Meghalaya have any disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their websites. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 106 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Orissa High Court

After analysing the Orissa High Court Right to Information Rules, 2005 as amended in 2012 and 2018 the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Orissa High Court.

15

Legality -55 13

Convenience -50

Practice -50 Key: 13 20 32 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI 4. Rule 4 (a) of the High Court RTI Rules mandatorily Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the requires the application be submitted along with a RTI Act declaration on oath that requires an applicant to state that the information in the application has been obtained 1. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name from authentic sources, that the facts stated in the of the authority in whose name the fee for fi ling the application are true to the applicant’s knowledge and do RTI application with the High Court, can be deposited. not come within the purview of Section 8(1)(a) to (j) of the Citizens require such information while making payments Act. We recommend the deletion of such a requirement through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We as it goes against Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very recommend the RTI Rules of the High Court be amended clearly mentions that citizens are not required to provide to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose any reasons for fi ling an RTI application or any other name the fee has to be deposited. information other than those required for contacting 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name him. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar Modi v. High Court of of the authority in whose name the fee for fi ling the RTI Jharkhand CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) has specifi cally ruled application with the District Courts, can be deposited. against such requirements to make declaration regarding Citizens require such information while making payments bona-fi de intent. through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. 5. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended information that need not be shared with citizens under to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 5 (ii) permits denial of whose name the fee has to be deposited while fi ling RTI information that is likely to affect the security of any applications with District Courts. institution or public order, Rule 5(iii) permits denial of 3. Rule 5(v) of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes limits on information that has no relation to any public activity and the number of questions or records of information that Rules 5(iv) permits denial of information that results in an can be asked by 1 per RTI application. It is recommended invasion of privacy to any person. The latter 2 exemptions that this rule be removed because such a limit restricts the are a dilution of the provision 8(j) because they do not have scope of the right to information as articulated by Section a larger public interest exception. We recommend these 6 of the RTI Act. Such limitations are vulnerable to being rules be deleted because Section 8 of the RTI Act already struck down for being ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act.

107 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

prescribes specifi c categories of documents that may be though our preferred mode of communication was email, exempted from the RTI Act. The CIC has already held in the rule was not followed in any of the 3 replies that we Suraj Prakash Manchanda v. Public Information Offi cer, Tiz received from the High Court. We, therefore, request that Hazari Courts (No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that the PIO be instructed to reply in the method preferred by public authorities cannot prescribe new categories of the applicant. This is particularly benefi cial in the case of exemption in their rules, over and beyond the exemptions an email since the time taken to communicate between the in Section 8. authority and applicant is signifi cantly reduced. 2. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. citizens Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on when the information is being provided to the applicant the High Court website in the local language of the State. under the RTI Act. None of the 3 replies received from the 2. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 2 per 180 High Court provided such details. It is thus requested that words as the cost of providing information. We recommend the PIO be instructed to provide the details of the First that the per-page cost of providing information be set at Rs. Appellate Authority while replying to all RTI applications. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the Central Government 3. All 3 of our applications were rejected on mala fi de grounds. Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have also been 2 out of the 3 applications were rejected on the basis of a adopted by the Supreme Court of India. rule that had already been deleted from the RTI rules of 3. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for the High Court through an amendment. The appellate inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection authority within the High Court subsequently overruled be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour the PIO for rejecting our applications on the basis of a being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central deleted rule. The third application sought the audit reports Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have of the High Court. However, this application was rejected also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. citing the confi dentiality of the information. However, 4. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists non-judicial Section 8 of the RTI Act does not list confi dentiality as a stamps, money orders, Indian Postal Order and bank ground for denial of information. It is requested that the drafts as methods of payment of RTI fees. We recommend PIO be sensitised about the correct interpretation of that payments be permitted through all the methods Section 8 of the RTI Act. listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 which have also been adopted D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, we recommend by the High Court that Rule 4 be amended to include bankers’ cheques. In addition, the High Court may allow digital modes of 1. We found that the disclosure appended to the RTI Rules payment such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT of the High Court, on the website of the High Court, transfer. was, making it diffi cult for the citizens to locate it. We 5. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees recommend that the disclosure be made available under a for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the separate head on the website. High Court do not mention, the identifying documents 2. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend information under Section 4 the disclosures also be made that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court available in the local language. RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central 3. The list of Rules provided under Section 4(1)(b)(v) needs Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have to be made more comprehensive and ideally hyperlinks also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. should be provided to the text of the Rules. 4. Under Section 4(1)(b)(viii), the public authorities are C. Recommendations regarding practices of the required to provide statement of committees. We Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI recommend that the composition and scope of work of applications such committees be published under the disclosure and be updated regularly. [NOTE: All the 3 applications fi led with the High Court were 5. The disclosure on the website is incomplete, it abruptly rejected.] ends with the disclosure under Section 4(1)(b)(xi). We strongly recommend that a statement of disclosure be 1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided prepared for sub clauses (xii) to (xvii) under Section 4(1) in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be (b). provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 108 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. Of the 30 District Courts in Orissa, 12 have made no disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their websites. The remaining 18 District Court websites have merely provided information regarding the Public Information Offi cer & Appellate Authority in English only 12 of which are in a separate RTI Section on their website. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

109 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Patna High Court

After analysing the Patna High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005 as amended in 2009, 2011 and 2014, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Patna High Court.

18

Legality -60 1

Convenience -10 15

Practice 0 Key: 16 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira RTI Act v. Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe 1. The High Court RTI Rules do not cover the District Courts. a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for We recommend that either, the High Court RTI Rules information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the be amended to cover District Courts or alternatively, use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made a different set of RTI Rules can be formulated for the mandatory. District Courts. 5. Form A of the High Court RTI Rules requires the applicant 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name to make a declaration of bonafi de intent. We recommend of the authority in whose name the fee for fi ling the RTI the deletion of such a requirement as it goes against application with the District Courts, can be deposited. Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very clearly mentions Citizens require such information while making payments that citizens are not required to provide any reasons for through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. fi ling a RTI application. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended Modi v High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in ruled against such requirements to make a declaration whose name the fee has to be deposited while fi ling RTI regarding bonafi de intent. applications with District Courts. 6. The gazette copy of the RTI Rules available on the website 3. Rule 8(3) of the High Court RTI Rules requires that separate are illegible. It is recommended that a legible copy be RTI applications be fi led for each subject and each year to uploaded to ensure that applicants know the Rules clearly which the information related. It is recommended that the before fi ling RTI applications with the High Court. above limits be removed because they restrict the scope of the right to information as articulated by Section 6 of the RTI Act. Such limitations are vulnerable to being struck down for being ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. 4. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a prescribed format. The Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 110 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the for 4 out of 6 questions stating that the information was RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for not related to the High Court. Other High Courts did citizens provide such information to us in response to the very same question. The other application sought audit reports 1. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules does not include digital of the High Court. The PIO in this case was of the opinion mode of payments for the fees and cost under the RTI Act. that the relevant public authority for seeking the audit We recommend that payments be permitted through UPI, report was not the High Court, which is required to be e-payment gateways and NEFT transfers to bring it at par in possession of this information, but the Accountant with the general provision given under Rule 6(c) of the General of the state. However, even then, the PIO did Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. not transfer the said application to the relevant public authority. Given that information in both these cases C. Recommendations regarding practices of the ought to be in possession of the High Court, we request Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI that the High Court follow better record keeping practices applications so that such crucial information can be provided to citizens [NOTE: 1 of the 3 applications fi led with the High Court was under the Act. Additionally, it is requested that the PIO be not replied to at all. Some or very limited information was sensitised to exercise the transfer provision under Section provided in response to the other 2 applications.] 6(3) of the Act instead of just naming the more appropriate authority that might be in possession of this information. 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states that the PIO is to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt by the High Court of the request. However, 1 of the 3 applications we fi led 1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively with the Patna High Court was not replied to at all and publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned another application was replied to after 40 days after in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure it had been fi led. We, therefore, request that the PIO be on the website of the High Court. We recommend that the instructed to reply to all RTI applications within 30 days High Court prepare a disclosure as required under Section of receipt of the application. To ensure the disposal of 4(1)(b) and make it available on the website of the High applications in a timely manner we request the High Court Court. Further the High Court must update the disclosures to revisit its procedures for disposing RTI applications to annually. remove bottlenecks and streamline procedures. 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be by the District Courts provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even though our preferred mode of communication was email, 1. Of the 37 District Courts in Bihar, 35 did not make any the rule was not followed in either of the 2 replies that we disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. The received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed remaining 2 District Court websites have provided to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This information regarding the Public Information Offi cer & is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the Appellate Authority in English. time taken to communicate between the authority and 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide applicant is signifi cantly reduced. detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act 3. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in both English and the local language. The information makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. website under a separate section that is labelled as Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to “Disclosures under the RTI Act”. provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even when the information is being provided to the applicant under the RTI Act. It is thus requested that the PIO be instructed to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority while replying to all RTI applications. Only 1 of the 2 replies received from the High Court provided such details. 4. Neither of the 2 replies that provided us with information were to our satisfaction. 1 of the applications had sought information related to funding for the state judiciary. In response, to this application, information was not provided

111 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Punjab and Haryana High Court

After analysing the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 as amended in 2012 and 2014 along with the Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 as amended in 2012 and 2014, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

3

Legality -20

Convenience -30 15 5 Practice 0 Key: 2

Rank 3 Section 4 57

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for RTI Act citizens

1. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on information that need not be shared with citizens under the High Court website in the local language of the states the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 4(1) permits denial of and UT serviced by the High Court i.e. Punjab, Haryana information relating to the juridical functions and duties and Chandigarh. of the Court and matters incidental and ancillary thereto 2. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules does not include and Rule 4(2) permits denial of information that affects electronic methods of payments for RTI application fees. the confi dentiality of judicial service examinations. We We recommend that payments be permitted through recommend these rules be deleted because Section 8 digital modes such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT of the RTI Act already prescribes specifi c categories transfers to bring it at par with the general provision of documents that may be exempted from the RTI Act. given under Rule 6(c) of the Central Government Right to The CIC has already held in Suraj Prakash Manchanda Information Rules, 2012. v. Public Information Offi cer, Tiz Hazari Courts (No. CIC/ 3. The RTI Act allows for exemption/reduction of payment of SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that public authorities RTI fees for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of cannot prescribe new categories of exemption in their the High Court do not mention the identifying documents rules, over and beyond the exemptions in Section 8. required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend 2. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules allows the Appellate that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court Authority to impose a penalty on the PIO for failing to RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central discharge his duty under the RTI Act at Rs. Rs. 50 per day Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have for failure to supply information and puts a maximum limit also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. of Rs. 500. In case of false information it imposes a penalty of Rs. 1000. We recommend deleting this rule because the RTI Act allows only the Information Commissioners to impose penalties on errant PIOs. The RTI Act does not vest such powers in the Appellate Authorities under the Act.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 112 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

C. Recommendations regarding practices of the Requiring applicants to once again pay for transferred Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI applications is in clear contravention of the RTI Act. applications Therefore, it is requested that PIO be instructed to not reject the application on account of the failure of payment [NOTE: 1 out of the 3 applications fi led with the High Court of application fees. was rejected. Some information was provided in response to the other 2 applications.] D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court 1. 1 of the replies received was not completely to our satisfaction. The application had sought information on 1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing the budget estimates, allocations, expenditure and saving information under Section 4 the disclosures also be made statements along with the allocation under the Centrally available in the local language. Sponsored Scheme. Although the reply to the application 2. High Courts as public authorities have many documents included the funding related information for both Punjab under their control. We recommend that the High Court and Haryana, the information which ran into more than prepare a list of all the documents that it has under its 200 pages, was not paginated and there was no way to control and also identify the custodian for each of those make out which budgeting documents belonged to which documents. This will assist the public in approaching the state. It is requested that all documents supplied in reply relevant offi ce for seeking documents. to RTI applications be properly paginated and labelled in a 3. While the disclosure has details about the budget manner that is understandable to even those not familiar allocations and PIO of the High Court, the said disclosures with the internal workings of the court. Additionally, it is do not provide information about the District Judiciary. recommended that the High Court follow better record We recommend that the disclosures be updated to include keeping practices to ensure that information between such information. different states be clearly demarcated, especially given that the High Court covers more than 1 state within its E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures jurisdiction. by the District Courts 2. Under Section 7 of the RTI Act, a request for information 1. The District Courts in Haryana and Punjab and the Union must be disposed within 30 days of receiving the Territory of Chandigarh come under the jurisdiction of the application. This includes submitting any documents that High Court of Punjab & Haryana. are requested for, although as per Section 7(3) of the RTI 2. Out of the 21 District Courts in Haryana, 20 have made Act, the time taken for the applicant to pay the additional well labelled disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI document fee is to be excluded from calculating the period Act in English. Only 1 District Court (Yamuna Nagar) of 30 days. The High Court, however, supplied documents, website has no disclosures. in response to 1 application, after 20 days of submission of 3. Out of the 22 District Courts in Punjab, 21 District Court document fee and more than 30 days after fi ling of the RTI websites have made well labelled disclosures under application. As a best practice, it is requested that the PIO Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in English. Only 1 District be instructed to provide the documents within reasonable Court (Fazilka) website has no disclosures. Although timelines. the website has an RTI section, the same contains no 3. 1 of the 3 RTI applications we fi led were rejected on mala- disclosures. fi de grounds. The application in question sought the audit 4. The 1 District Court in Chandigarh has made well labelled reports of the High Court. The PIO agreed to give the disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on its copies of the audit reports that were sought for in the fi rst website in English. reply. However, we then received a second reply, which 5. We recommend that all District Courts should provide said that the sought audit reports could not be provided detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act to the applicant because they are confi dential documents. in both English and the local language. The information It should be noted that Section 8 of the RTI Act does not provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts list confi dentiality as a ground for denying information. website under a separate section that is labelled as It is therefore requested that the PIO be sensitised to “Disclosures under the RTI Act”. not frivolously reject applications by overextending the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. 4. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period of fi ve days. However, both the applications transferred by the Department of Justice to the High Court were rejected on account of non-payment of application fees.

113 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Rajasthan High Court

After analysing the Rajasthan Right to Information (High Court & Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 as amended in 2016 and 2018, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Rajasthan High Court.

12

Legality -50

Convenience -50 14

13 Practice 3 Key: 16 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI 3. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the information that need not be shared with citizens under RTI Act the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 10(1)(ii) permits denial of information likely to affect the security of any institution 1. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory or the public order, Rule 10 (1) (iii) permits denial of to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a prescribed format. information not related to public activity, Rule 10(1) The Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No. (iv) permits denial of information that may violate the F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central privacy of any person and Rule 10(1)(v) permits denial Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira of information that is related to a policy matter under v. Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) consideration. We recommend these rules be deleted have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe because Section 8 of the RTI Act already prescribes a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for specifi c categories of documents that may be exempted information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the from the RTI Act. The CIC has already held in Suraj use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made Prakash Manchanda v. Public Information Offi cer, Tiz Hazari mandatory. Courts (No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that public 2. Rule 10(2) of the High Court RTI Rules requires the authorities cannot prescribe new categories of exemption applicant to make a declaration of bona-fi de intent. in their rules, over and beyond the exemptions in Section 8 Additionally, it also places a requirement on the applicant of the RTI Act. to provide details of their age, occupation and father’s 4. Rule 7 of the High Court RTI Rules requires citizens to pay name. We recommend the deletion of such requirement a fee of Rs. 100 as cost for fi ling an appeal. We recommend to make a declaration as it goes against Section 6(2) of the deleting this rule because the RTI Act does not allow RTI Act which very clearly mentions that citizens are not public authorities the power to charge for appeals. The required to provide any reasons for fi ling an RTI application CIC in the case of L.G. Dass v. Patiala House Court (CIC/ or any other information other than those required for AD/A/2013/001687SA) recommended to the Delhi High contacting him. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar Modi v. Court that it delete the provision in the Delhi District High Court of Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) has Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 which charged a specifi cally ruled against such a requirement to make fee for hearing appeals. declaration regarding bona-fi de intent.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 114 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI application. We, therefore, request that the PIO be RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for instructed to reply to all RTI applications within 30 days citizens of receipt of the application. To ensure the disposal of applications in a timely manner we request the High Court 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on to revisit its procedures for disposing RTI applications to the High Court website in the local language of the state. remove bottlenecks and streamline procedures. 2. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 50 as 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided the cost of fi ling an RTI application. We recommend that in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be the cost of fi ling an RTI application be reduced to Rs. provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even 10 to make it at par with the fee charged by the Central though our preferred mode of communication was email, Government RTI Rules, 2012 that have also been adopted the rule was followed in neither of the 3 replies that we by the Supreme Court of India. received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed 3. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules requires the payment of to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This Rs. 100 per application for inspection of records. Following is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the such a payment, an applicant can inspect the record for 60 time taken to communicate between the authority and minutes without any further payment. After the expiry of applicant is signifi cantly reduced. the fi rst hour, Rule 9 prescribes Rs. 25 per 15 minutes as 3. The 1 application to which we received information was cost for inspection. We recommend that the cost of the only partially satisfactory. The quality of photocopying application for inspection be reduced to Rs. 10 with the was poor preventing the applicant from deciphering the fi rst hour being free and every subsequent hour being information that was provided. The other 2 applications charged Rs. 5 per hour, to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of received a standardised rejection that the applications the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 did not prescribe to the format given under the Act even that have also been adopted by the Supreme Court. when all the information required under Section 6(2) had 4. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists non-judicial been provided. It is therefore requested that the PIO be stamps, bankers’ cheques and demand drafts as methods sensitised to satisfy basic requirements such as providing of payment of RTI fees. We recommend that payments be proper photocopy of documents while ensuring that the permitted through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of applications are adjudicated on their merits instead of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 rejecting them via standardised replies. which have also been adopted by the Supreme Court of 4. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does India. Therefore, we recommend that Rule 4 be amended not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to include Indian Postal Orders. In addition, the High to transfer it to the relevant public authority within a Court should consider digital modes of payments such as period of fi ve days. However, both of our applications UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT transfer as methods which were transferred by the Department of Justice to of payment. the High Court were rejected on account of non-payment 5. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees of application fees or on account of failing to prescribe to for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the the format available in the rules. Requiring applicants to High Court do not mention the identifying documents once again pay for transferred applications or expecting required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend applicants to pre-empt the transfer and follow the format that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court given under the rules is in clear contravention of the RTI RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central Act. Therefore, it is requested that the PIO be instructed Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have to not reject the application on account of the failure to also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. make payment of application fees or on account of not following the prescribed format. C. Recommendations regarding practices of the Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures applications by the High Court [NOTE: 2 out of the 3 applications fi led with the High Court 1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively were rejected. Some information was provided to the third publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned application.] in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure on the website of the High Court. We recommend that the 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states High Court prepare a disclosure as required under Section that the PIO is to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously 4(1)(b) and make it available on the website of the High as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the Court. Further the High Court must update the disclosure receipt of the request. However, we received replies to annually. only 1 of the 3 applications, 40 days after we fi led the

115 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. None of the 35 District Courts in Rajasthan have made any disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their websites. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 116 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Sikkim High Court

After analysing the High Court of Sikkim Right to Information (Regulation of Fee, Cost and Miscellaneous) Rules, 2007 as amended in 2008 and 2011, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Sikkim High Court.

20

Legality -65 5

-30 Convenience 9

Practice 13 Key: 16 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI 4. Rule 19(v) of the High Court RTI Rules allows the PIO to deny Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the information that would not “be against any law or practice RTI Act prevailing in the material regard”. We recommend that this rule be deleted because Section 8 of the RTI Act already 1. We recommend that a clear copy of the High Court RTI prescribes specifi c categories of documents that may be Rules of the High Court be published on the website of the exempted from the RTI Act. The CIC has already held in High Court. The only copy of the High Court RTI Rules that Suraj Prakash Manchanda v. Public Information Offi cer, Tiz we could fi nd were available on the website of the National Hazari Courts (No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that Federation of Information Commissions in India (NFICI). public authorities cannot prescribe new categories of 2. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules limits the number of items exemption in their rules, over and beyond the exemptions that can be asked per RTI application. It is recommended in Section 8. that such a limit be removed because it restricts the scope 5. Rule 11 of the High Court RTI Rules reiterates the transfer of the right to information as articulated by Section 6 of provision under Section 6 of the RTI Act. Dichotomously, the RTI Act. Such limitations on the number of items that Rule 3 dilutes this same provision by stating that the public can be asked in an RTI application are vulnerable to being authority will instead, render advice on the correct public struck down for being ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. authority that must be approached with the application. 3. Rule 19 of the High Court RTI Rules requires the We recommend deleting this rule because it is clearly applicant to make a mandatory declaration that the ultra vires Section 6(3) of the RTI Act which requires public motive for seeking the information is proper and legal. authorities to transfer an RTI application that may not We recommend the deletion of such a requirement as pertain to records held by them, to the public authority it goes against Section 6(2) of the RTI Act which very which is most likely to have the information required to clearly mentions that citizens are not required to provide answer the queries of the citizen. any reasons for fi ling an RTI application or any other 6. Rule 23 of the High Court RTI Rules requires citizens to information other than those required for contacting pay a fee of Rs. 100 for fi ling an appeal. We recommend him. The CIC in the case of Ajit Kumar Modi v. High Court of deleting this rule because the RTI Act does not allow Jharkhand (CIC/PA/A/2009/000001) has specifi cally ruled public authorities the power to charge a fee for appeals. against such requirements to make declaration regarding The CIC (in the case of L.G. Dass v. Patiala House Court (CIC/ bona-fi de intent.

117 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

AD/A/2013/001687SA) recommended to the Delhi High 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided Court that it delete the provision in the Delhi District in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 which charged a provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even fee for hearing appeals. though our preferred mode of communication was email, 7. The High Court Rules do not follow a coherent system the rule was not followed in either of the 3 replies that we of numbering. 3 rules have the same numbering i.e. Rule received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed 2. We recommend that the rules be amended to follow a to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This consistent numbering system. is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the time taken to communicate between the authority and B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the applicant is signifi cantly reduced. RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for 3. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 citizens makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to the High Court website in the local language of the state. provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even 2. The High Court Rules do not provide the per-page cost when the information is being provided to the applicant of providing information. We recommend that the per- under the RTI Act. It is thus requested that the PIO be page cost of providing information be clearly mentioned instructed to provide the details of the First Appellate and set at Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the Central Authority while replying to all RTI applications. Neither of Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have the 3 replies received from the High Court provided such also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. details. 3. Rule 2 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists that the payment 4. While 2 of the replies received were completely to the needs to be accompanied by a bank receipt deposited in satisfaction, 1 was not. The application to which we did not the State Bank of Sikkim as applicant fee. We recommend get satisfactory information sought budgetary estimates, that payments be permitted through all the methods allocations, saving and expenditure statements and listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to allocation under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme. While Information Rules, 2012 which have also been adopted the application was responded to, it was also transferred by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, we recommend to another authority i.e. Law Department. Complete that Rule 2 be amended to include cash, demand drafts, information was not provided by the PIO. We recommend bankers’ cheques and Indian Postal Orders. In addition, that the PIO be sensitised through training sessions the High Court should adopt digital modes of payments conducted by RTI specialists on how best to accurately such as UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT transfer as respond to RTI applications. methods of payment. 5. Under Section 7 of the RTI Act, a request for information must be disposed within 30 days of receiving the C. Recommendations regarding practices of the application. This includes submitting any documents that Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI are requested for, although as per Section 7(3) of the RTI applications Act, the time taken for the applicant to pay the additional [NOTE: All 3 applications fi led with the High Court were document fee is to be excluded from calculating the period replied to by the PIO. Some information was provided in of 30 days. While the High Court supplied documents response to 1 application and 2 replies were to the satisfaction for 2 applications within 21 days or with the fi rst reply, of the applicant]. documents for the third application were supplied 30 days after we submitted the document fee. As a best practice, 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states it is requested that the PIO be instructed to provide the that the PIO is to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously documents within reasonable timelines. as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt 6. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does of the request. However, we received replies to 1 out of not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to the 3 applications, fi led with the Sikkim High Court, after transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period 40 days of fi ling the application. We, therefore, request of fi ve days. However, 1 of the 2 applications transferred that the PIO be instructed to reply to all RTI applications by the Department of Justice to the High Court was within 30 days of receipt of the application. To ensure the rejected on account of non-payment of application fees disposal of applications in a timely manner we request while the other transferred application was not replied to the High Court to revisit its procedures for disposing by the High Court. Requiring applicants to once again pay RTI applications to remove bottlenecks and streamline for transferred applications is in clear contravention of the procedures.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 118 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

RTI Act. Therefore, it is requested that PIO be instructed to not reject the application on account of the failure of payment of application fees.

D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court

1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure on the website of the High Court. It should be mentioned that in the case of C.J. Karira v. High Courts (CIC/SM/C/2011/900894) the CIC has already made a recommendation to the Sikkim High Court, under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, on January 12, 2012 to publish on its website disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. We recommend that the High Court publish a disclosure as required under Section 4(1)(b) on its website and update it regularly.

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. None of the 4 District Courts in Sikkim have made any disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their websites. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

119 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Telangana High Court

The following are the results of our analysis of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005 as amended in 2013 and 2017 which have been adopted by the Telangana High Court2, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications. The following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Telangana High Court.

6

Legality -30 8

-40 Convenience 22

Practice -60 Key: 16 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the name the fee has to be deposited when an RTI application RTI Act is fi led with a District Court.

1. While the High Court RTI Rules are available on the website of the High Court, the amendments have not been B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the published on the website. We recommend that a clear RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for copy of the amendments to the RTI Rules be published on citizens the website of the High Court. 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the the High Court website in the local language of the State. RTI application, can be deposited. Citizens require such 2. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 15 as the information while making payments through Indian Postal per hour cost for inspection of documents. We recommend Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We recommend the RTI that the cost of inspection be reduced to Rs. 5 per hour, Rules of the High Court be amended to specifi cally provide with the fi rst hour being free to bring it at par with Rule the name of the authority in whose name the fee has to be 4(f) of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, deposited. 2012. 3. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name 3. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules, does not mention of the authority in whose name the fees, for fi ling the RTI bankers’ cheques as 1 of the methods of payment of application with the District Courts, can be deposited. RTI fees. We recommend that payments be permitted Citizens require such information while making payments through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of the Central through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. Therefore, We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended to we recommend that Rule 3 be amended to include banker’s

2 We presume these rules have been adopted post the bifurcation of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court since the link on the website of the new Telangana High Court leads to these rules.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 120 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

cheques. In addition, we recommend that the High Court to individual questions and prevent PIOs from side- allow digital modes of payments such as UPI, e-payment stepping specifi c questions by providing a consolidated gateways and NEFT. response. 4. The RTI Act allows for exemption of payment of RTI fees 4. The 1 RTI application regarding the implementation of the for below poverty line applicants. The RTI Rules of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 received a partial response. High Court do not mention, the identifying documents 5. We classifi ed 2 of the replies from the High Court as a mala- required to be submitted by a BPL citizen. We recommend fi de rejection. As mentioned above, the RTI application that a clear criterion be prescribed under the High Court which dealt with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 RTI Rules to bring it at par with Rule 5 of the Central received only a partial response. The remaining questions Government Right to Information Rules, 2012. were rejected on the grounds that the information requested for would involve the diversion of men and C. Recommendations regarding practices of the material and resources which are not commensurate Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI with the public interest involved. We classifi ed this reply applications as a mala-fi de reply because the information requested for in our application was information that is statutorily [NOTE: 1 of the 3 applications fi led with the High Court, 1 required to be maintained by the High Court under Section application was not replied to, 1 application was rejected and 17 of the Commercial Courts Act. Other High Courts though the third application was replied to no substantial provided us complete responses to similar questions. In information was provided.] the second RTI application we had sought budget data for the state judiciary. It was rejected by the High Court We had fi led 3 applications in November, 2018 with the on the ground that internal notings were confi dential and Hyderabad High Court. In the following month, the Hyderabad could not be shared with us. It also cited a Madras High High Court was bifurcated into the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment on the issue of internal notings of the Court and Telangana High Court. The replies were ultimately court being confi dential. However, it should be noted that received from the High Court of Telangana. We have used the Madras High Court responded to the same application these replies for the analysing the practices of the PIO in providing us with the required information. Moreover, replying to RTI applications. budget documents cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered confi dential. In fact, as per Section 4(1)(b) of 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states the RTI Act, there is a requirement for all public authorities that the PIO is to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously to proactively publish information related to the budgets as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the and other fi nancial information. We strongly recommend receipt of the request. However, 1 of the 3 applications, to the High Court that it organize training sessions for all was not replied to by the PIO, while another application offi cers being deputed as PIOs. was replied to after 40 days of receipt of the application. 6. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed to not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to reply to all RTI applications within 30 days of receipt of transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period the application. To ensure the disposal of applications of fi ve days. However, 2 of our RTI applications transferred in a timely manner we request the High Court to revisit by the Department of Justice to the High Court were not its procedures for disposing RTI applications to remove replied to at all. It is requested that the PIO be instructed bottlenecks and streamline procedures. to respond to transferred applications within 30 days of 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided receiving the application akin to any other RTI application in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be that is fi led with it at the fi rst instance. provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even though our preferred mode of communication was email, D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures the rule was not followed in both the replies that we by the High Court received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This 1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned time taken to communicate between the authority and in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure applicant is signifi cantly reduced. on the website of the High Court. We recommend that the 3. Of the 2 replies that we received, 1 did not contain a High Court prepare a disclosure as required under Section question wise reply. The other application was rejected 4(1)(b) and make it available on the website of the High and could therefore not contain a question wise reply. It is Court. Further the High Court must update the disclosure requested that the PIO be instructed to provide question annually. wise replies to enable an applicant to match the responses

121 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the District Courts

1. None of the 9 District Courts in Telangana have made any disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their websites. 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 122 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Tripura High Court

After analysing the Tripura High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2013, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Tripura High Court.

15

Legality -55 8

-40 Convenience 7

Practice 15 Key: 16 0 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI of the case. We recommend that these rules be deleted Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the because Section 8 of the RTI Act already prescribes RTI Act specifi c categories of documents that may be exempted from the RTI Act. The CIC has already held in Suraj 1. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes a limit of Prakash Manchanda v. Public Information Offi cer, Tiz Hazari 1 subject per year for each individual RTI application. Courts (No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147) that public It is recommended that this limit be removed because authorities cannot prescribe new categories of exemption it restricts the scope of the right to information as in their rules, over and beyond the exemptions in Section 8. articulated by Section 6 of the RTI Act. Such limitations 3. Rule 8 of the High Court RTI Rules allows the Appellate on the questions/subject that can be asked in an RTI Authority to impose a penalty on the PIO for failing to application are vulnerable to being struck down for being discharge his duty under the RTI Act at Rs. 50 per day ultra vires Section 6 of the RTI Act. is prescribed for the failure to supply information and 2. The High Court RTI Rules prescribe categories of puts a maximum limit of Rs. 500. In case the information information that need not be shared with citizens provided is false a penalty of Rs. 1000 is prescribed. We under the RTI Act. Specifi cally, Rule 5 (i) permits denial recommend deleting this rule because the RTI Act allows of information that does not relate to public domain, only the Information Commissioners to impose penalties juridical functions and duties of the court, Rule 5 (iv) on errant PIOs. The RTI Act does not vest such powers in permits denial of information that affects confi dentiality the Appellate Authorities under the Act. of any examination conducted by the High Court, Rule 4. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules requires citizens to 5(iii) permits denial of information which relates to any pay a fee of Rs. 100 for fi ling an appeal. We recommend public activity or interest, Rule 4(vi) permits denial of deleting this rule because the RTI Act does not allow information concerning administrative or quasi-judicial public authorities the power to charge for appeals. The decisions and Rule 4(vii) permits denial of information that CIC (in the case of L.G. Dass v. Patiala House Court (CIC/ involves sensitive matters such as matrimonial matters, AD/A/2013/001687SA) recommended to the Delhi High Juvenile Justice Act matters relating to intelligence Court that it delete the provision in the Delhi District agencies, matters relating to domestic violence and sexual Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 which charged a offences against women and children is not required to be fee for hearing appeals. provided except information on the status and pendency

123 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the citizens time taken to communicate between the authority and applicant is signifi cantly reduced. 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on 3. Section 7(8)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the High Court website in the local language of the state. makes it mandatory for PIOs to provide the details of the 2. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 5 as First Appellate Authority while rejecting RTI applications. the per-page cost for A4 paper, Rs 10 for legal and Rs Similarly, Section 7(3)(b) makes it mandatory for PIOs to 100 for CD as document fee for providing information. provide the details of the First Appellate Authority even We recommend that the per-page cost of providing when the information is being provided to the applicant information be reduced to Rs. 2 per page and Rs. 50 for CD under the RTI Act. None of the 3 replies received from the to bring it at par with Rule 4 of the Central Government High Court provided such details. It is thus requested that Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have also been the PIO be instructed to provide the details of the First adopted by the Supreme Court of India. Appellate Authority while replying to all RTI applications. 3. The High Court RTI Rules do not specify a cost for 4. Both the applications that contained multiple questions inspection. We recommend that the cost of inspection did not receive question wise replies. It is requested that be specifi ed and set at Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour the PIO be instructed to provide question wise replies to being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central enable an applicant to match the responses to individual Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have questions and prevent PIOs from side-stepping specifi c also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India. questions by providing a consolidated response. 4. Rule 9 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists cash, treasury 5. All the 3 replies received were only partially satisfactory. 1 challan, bank draft or Indian Postal Order as methods of application sought information that was statutorily payment of RTI fees. We recommend that payments be required to be maintained under Section 17 of the permitted through all the methods listed under Rule 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. While information was the Central Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 provided in reply to this application, part of the application which have also been adopted by the Supreme Court of was transferred to all District Courts even though the India. Therefore, we recommend that Rule 9 be amended High Court was required to statutorily maintain this to include banker’s cheques. In addition, we recommend information. The second application sought audit report the High Court adopted digital modes of payment such as for 5 years, however information was provided for only UPI, e-payment gateways and NEFT transfer as methods 1 of the 5 years. The third application sought budgetary of payment. estimates, allocations, saving and expenditure statements and allocation under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme C. Recommendations regarding practices of the to the High Court. The information provided to this Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI application was incomplete and therefore not to our applications satisfaction. [NOTE: Some information was provided in response to all the 3 applications fi led with the High Court.] D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures by the High Court 1. Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states 1. All public authorities are duty bound to proactively that the PIO is to dispose RTI applications as expeditiously publish information with regard to the clauses mentioned as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt in Section 4(1)(b). However, we could not fi nd a disclosure of the request. However, 1 out of the 3 applications fi led on the website of the High Court. We recommend that with the Tripura High Court was replied to after 40 days. the High Court prepare a disclosure as required under We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed to Section 4(1)(b) and publish it on the website of the High reply to all RTI applications within 30 days of receipt of Court. Further the High Court must update the disclosure the application. To ensure the disposal of applications annually. in a timely manner we request the High Court to revisit its procedures for disposing RTI applications to remove E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures bottlenecks and streamline procedures. by the District Courts 2. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be 1. Out of the 8 District Courts in Tripura, 7 District Courts provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even have no disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act though our preferred mode of communication was email, on their websites. 1 District Court website provides some the rule was not followed in any of the 3 replies that we information regarding the Public Information Offi cer & received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed Appellate Authority in English.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 124 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act in both English and the local language. The information provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts website under a separate section that is labelled as “Disclosures under the RTI Act”.

125 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Uttarakhand High Court

After analysing the Uttarakhand High Court Right to Information Rules, 2009 as amended in 2010, the disclosures made by the High Court and the Districts Courts covered under its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the replies received to our RTI applications, the following are the results of our analysis and recommendations to the Uttarakhand High Court.

8

Legality -40

Convenience -40 6

8 Practice 20 Key: 11 39 Rank 3 Section 4

Score -20 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For details about the scoring method for the indices, please refer to the main report "Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI.”

A. Recommendations regarding amendments to the RTI to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in Rules of the High Court to ensure compliance with the whose name the fee has to be deposited while fi ling RTI RTI Act applications with the District Courts. 4. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules makes it mandatory 1. We could fi nd a copy of the High Court RTI Rules on the to fi le RTI applications or appeals in a prescribed format. High Court website only through a search on an internet The Department of Personnel and Training (In OM No. search engine because the rules are not visible on the F.No. 1/2/2007-IT dated 23 March 2007) and the Central homepage of the High Court website. Additionally, even Information Commission in Chandrakant Jamnadas Karira the 2010 amendment to the High Court RTI Rules are v. Vice-President’s Secretariat (CIC/WB/C/2009/900352) unavailable. Both the RTI Rules and the amendments had have reiterated that public authorities cannot prescribe to be sourced from a paid online database. We recommend a mandatory form for citizens to make requests for that a clear copy of the RTI Rules of the High Court be information under the RTI Act. It is recommended that the published on the website of the High Court. use of a form be deleted or at the very least not be made 2. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name mandatory. of the authority in whose name the fees for fi ling the RTI application with the High Court, can be deposited. B. Recommendations regarding amendments to the Citizens require such information while making payments RTI Rules of the High Court to simplify the process for through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. We citizens recommend the RTI Rules of the High Court be amended to specifi cally provide the name of the authority in whose 1. We recommend that the High Court Rules be published on name the fee has to be deposited. the High Court website in the local language of the state. 3. The High Court RTI Rules are silent regarding the name 2. The High Court Rules do not prescribe the per-page cost of the authority in whose name the fees for fi ling the RTI of providing information. We recommend that the per- application with the District Courts, can be deposited. page cost of providing information be clearly mentioned Citizens require such information while making payments in the Rules and set at Rs. 2 to bring it at par with Rule 4 through Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) or demand drafts. of the Central Government Right to Information Rules, We recommend the relevant RTI Rules be amended 2012 that have also been adopted by the Supreme Court of India.

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 126 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

3. Rule 4 of the High Court RTI Rules prescribes Rs. 20 per by the Department of Justice to the High Court were not hour as cost for inspection. We recommend that the cost of replied to at all. It is requested that the PIO be instructed inspection be reduced to Rs. 5 per hour, with the fi rst hour to respond to transfer applications within 30 days of being free to bring it at par with Rule 4(f) of the Central receiving the application akin to any application that is Government Right to Information Rules, 2012 that have fi led with it at the fi rst instance. also been adopted by the Supreme Court. 4. Rule 3 of the High Court RTI Rules, lists cash, demand D. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures draft, Indian Postal Orders and adhesive court fee stamps by the High Court as methods of payment of RTI fees. We recommend 1. We recommend that to assist citizens in accessing that payments be permitted through all the methods information under Section 4 the disclosures be also made listed under Rule 6 of the Central Government Right to available in the local language. Information Rules, 2012 which have also been adopted 2. The list of Rules provided under Section 4(1)(b)(v) needs by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, we recommend to be made more comprehensive and ideally hyperlinks that Rule 3 be amended to include banker’s cheques. We should be provided to the text of the Rules. further recommend that the High Court recognise digital 3. High Courts as public authorities have many documents modes of payment such as UPI, e-payment gateways and under their control. We recommend that the High Court NEFT transfer as methods of payment. prepare a list of all the documents that it has under its control and also identify the custodian for each. This will C. Recommendations regarding practices of the assist the public in approaching the relevant offi ce for Public Information Offi cers while responding to RTI seeking documents. applications 4. Under Section 4(1)(b)(viii), the public authorities are [NOTE: All the 3 applications fi led with the High Court were required to provide statement of committees. We replied to. Complete information was provided in response to recommend that the composition and scope of work of 2 out of the 3 applications and some information was provided such committees be published under the disclosure and be to the third application.] updated regularly.

1. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, any information provided E. Recommendations regarding Section 4 Disclosures in response to an RTI application should ordinarily be by the District Courts provided in the form in which it is sought. However, even 1. Out of the 13 District Courts in Uttarakhand, 6 have made though our preferred mode of communication was email, well labelled disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act the rule was not followed in either of the 3 replies that we in English. 5 of these disclosures are in English and 1 in the received. We, therefore, request that the PIO be instructed local language. All 6 of these disclosures are in a separate to reply in the method preferred by the applicant. This RTI section on the website. 2 District Court websites has is particularly benefi cial in the case of an email since the provided information regarding the Public Information time taken to communicate between the authority and Offi cer & Appellate Authority in English which are ina applicant is signifi cantly reduced. separate RTI section. 5 other District Court websites have 2. Only 1 of the 2 applications that contained multiple no disclosures. questions received a question wise reply. It is requested 2. We recommend that all District Courts should provide that the PIO be instructed to provide question wise replies detailed disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act to enable an applicant to match the responses to individual in both English and the local language. The information questions and prevent PIOs from side-stepping specifi c provided should be easily accessible on the e-Courts questions by providing a consolidated response. website under a separate RTI section. 3. All the replies received to our RTI application were not completely to our satisfaction. 1 application that sought audit reports of the High Court was replied to with a copy of a document that was handwritten and illegible and thus diffi cult to decipher. It is possible that the High Court received these reports in this format. It is therefore recommended that the High Court follow better record keeping practices to ensure that the problems such as the 1 above could be remedied. 4. As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an RTI application does not pertain to a particular public authority, it is required to transfer it to the relevant public authority within a period of fi ve days. However, both the applications transferred

127 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

D-359, Defence Colony, New Delhi -110024 011 - 43102767 / 011- 43831699

[email protected].

Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act 128