: In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has amended its Right to Information Rules, 2006, regarding the rate of application fee and exemption to persons living below poverty line, following a public interest writ petition moved by a group of law students. They had raised the issue of discrepancies in the rules with the umbrella legislation — the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The group, Whistle for Public Interest (WHIP), stated that the lack of compatibility had led to denial of access to information and affected a fundamental right of citizens.
The students pointed out that the provisions for exorbitant fee and filing of separate applications for unrelated information as well as the lack of provision for supply of information free of cost had rendered the High Court's rules, framed in 2006, inconsistent with the RTI Act.
While the RTI Act prescribes Rs.10 as application fee and Rs.2 per page for providing physical or xerox copies, the HC's rules had laid down the application fee of Rs.50 and Rs.5 per page for copies.
There is no provision in the RTI Act for filing of separate applications in case of unrelated information, but Rule 3 of the High Court's Rules states that for each piece of information sought, a separate application should be made.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath, disposing of the writ petition filed by students Aastha Sharma, Ishwin Mehta, Paras Jain and Kumar Shanu, recently observed that the amendments made to the High Court Rules and District Rules had brought the fees structure in conformity with the RTI Rules framed by the Centre.
The court said that a panel dealing with the issues had already recommended a reduction of fees as well as insertion of a provision to make information free for BPL applicants. These recommendations were approved by the Full Court in a meeting held on January 18.
The Bench noted that the amended RTI Rules would exempt those that provide a copy of a certificate submitted along with the application.
However, the court did not find any merit in the petitioners' contention that Section 3 of the RTI Rules should be amended to allow an applicant to seek multiple information under a single application. The court said the provision was intended to prevent frivolous applications seeking roving inquiries into various subjects.
The law studentssaid the objective of the RTI Act to ensure “maximum disclosure and minimum exemption” could only be achieved when an applicant was allowed to seek multiple information under one application.
The petitioners have decided to challenge the HC’s refusal to amend Section 3 of the RTI Rules before the Supreme Court, while affirming that the reasoning given by the Bench was neither fulfilling the purpose of the Act nor contemplated by any provision of the Act itself.
Whistle for Public Interest said the fee had led to denial of access to information
