The Implementation of The Right To Information Act 2005 in Nine High Courts of India - A Comparative Study - LSRP

The Implementation of the Right to Information Act,
2005 in Nine High Courts of India - A Comparative

Study
____________________________
The Implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in Nine High Courts of India - A Comparative Study
This report has been funded by the Law and Policy Hub, Azim Premji University, Bangalore and has been
authored by the members of the Legal System Reforms Project (LSRP) .
Suggested Citation: Rahul Hemrajani, Ankita Guru, Supraja Rayabhari, Anmol Chacko, Ashutosh Mishra. 2017.
The Implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in Nine High Courts of India - A Comparative Study.
Bangalore: Legal System Reforms Project, Azim Premji University,
About the Legal System Reforms Project
The Legal System Reforms Project (LSRP) is a year-long project undertaken by the final-year post-graduate
students of Azim Premji University and incubated under the Hub for Law and Policy. The broad theme for the
Legal System Reforms Project of 2016-2017 is the relationship between data and legal institutions. The LSR
project in 2016-17 aims to examine two tools to obtain supplementary data from Indias legal institutions,
through its two projects -- The Karnataka Crime Victimisation Survey and the RTI and the High Courts project.
For more information, please visit https://thelsr.wordpress.com/lsrp/
The Legal System Reforms Project., 2017.

Cover photograph by Muhammad Mahdi Karim, distributed under a GFDL 1.2 license.
Author Information
TEAM MEMBERS
Rahul Hemrajani
Ankita Guru
Supraja Rayabhari
Ashutosh Mishra
Annmol Chacko
ADVISORS
Sudhir Krishnaswamy
Abhayraj Naik
Amulya Purushothama
1
The Legal System Reforms Project
Table of Contents
________________________
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ 3
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 5
Project Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 8
Project Findings..................................................................................................................................... 12
Analysis of Individual High Courts.................................................................................................. 32
Allahabad High Court..................................................................................................................... 33

Chennai High Court.........................................................................................................................42
Delhi High Court.............................................................................................................................. 53
Himachal Pradesh High Court...................................................................................................... 64
Kerala High Court............................................................................................................................ 79
Kolkata High Court.......................................................................................................................... 87
Mumbai High Court.........................................................................................................................95
Punjab and Haryana High Court................................................................................................ 104
Resources...............................................................................................................................................115
Annexure 1: List of Sample Courts................................................................................................ 117
Annexure 2: RTI Questionnaire...................................................................................................... 119
Annexure 3: The Court Transparency Index (CTI) rating system....................................... 122
2
Acknowledgements
____________________________
This report would not have been possible special thanks to Abhayraj Naik, the director of
without the support and contribution of several the Hub, and a constant source of mentorship
Individuals and partners. We would like to and guidance.
express our immense gratitude to our project
advisor, Prof. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, for We would like to thank Venkatesh Nayak from
encouraging us to take up the topic of Right to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and
Information and the High Courts. His patience Anuj Kapoor, for their valuable comments on
and pointed comments have been invaluable, our questionnaire.
especially during the times that we faced some
difficulty with the project. We would also like to We would like to express our gratitude to
thank Amulya , for agreeing to go through our Archana, Arvind, Ankita,Antony, Jayesh fo
work and for her rigorous attention to detail. translating some of the questions to regional
languages. We would also like to thank
The research was funded by the Hub for Law Nayashree, Nagraja and Girija for assisting us
and Policy at Azim Premji University, and we with the logistics of the RTI applications.
would like to thank the staff and coordinators
of the hub for their constant encouragement. A The mistakes of course are ours alone.
3
Executive Summary
____________________________
This project compares the implementation of Allahabad High Court performed the worst with
the Right to Information Act,2005 (RTI) across a CTI of 52. High Courts performed best on the
nine High Courts in India. We do this through Rules criteria, with the average high court
developing a numerical scale called the Court having a score of 16.9 out of a possible 20 and
Transparency Index (CTI) to measure each High performed most poorly on the disclosures
court's compliance with the Act. The CTI criteria, with the average high court having a
includes five different aspects of RTI score of 7.6 out of a possible 20 .
compliance- Rules, Disclosures, Decisions,
Practice and Speed. The Rules criteria measures Through a practice-based comparative analyses
the compliance of High Court RTI rules with the of High Courts, the project also highlights the
RTI act. The Disclosures criteria measures methods through which the court subverts
compliance of the High Court with Suo-motu requests for information. This includes rejecting
disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI act. The applications on procedural grounds such as
Decisions criteria measures whether the such as excess fees paid, application not signed
judgements of the High Court on the RTI act are and incorrect name in the demand draft. Other
compliant with the Acts letter and spirit. The reasons for rejections included statements such
Practice criteria measures how well did the as, available in website, information not
High Court respond to ten RTI applications filed available in form, information kept in a sealed
by us. The Speed criteria measures how fast did envelope. In fact, data available from four high
the High Court respond to these ten courts, shows that High Courts reject 35.5% of
applications. Each of these criteria are RTI applications on grounds outside the RTI act.
measured on a 20 point scale, the sum of which
forms the 100 point CTI. Ten years after the RTI Act came into force, its
initial objectives of accountability and
Our study confirmed the hypothesis that High transparency of public institutions continues to
Court's perform poorly in terms of elude us. The Indian judiciary, while
implementing the RTI act. The median CTI of all maintaining a rhetoric on government
nine High courts was 64 out of a possible 100. accountability, continues to be opaque and
Punjab and Haryana High Court performed best non-compliant with the RTI Act.
on our model with a CTI of 75, while the
4
Introduction
____________________________
The Right to Information Act, 2005 ( RTI ) was Act.4 Further, many High Courts have framed
passed in India to give all citizens the right to RTI Rules which contain provisions patently
access information available with a public ultra vires the parent Act.5 These Rules often
authority. The courts in India have however add procedural obstacles to obtaining
been antipathetic to the release of information information from the court through increased
under RTI, often through the adoption of a application fees, reduced working hours, and
restricted view of the Act and its provisions.1 unnecessary declarations to be added to each
For instance, the Supreme Court of India has application.6 A study conducted by
held that frivolous RTI applications which are Commonwealth Human Right Initiative (CHRI,
unrelated to transparency and accountability found several such discrepancies in the Rules of
in the functioning of public authorities and Delhi courts, and made recommendations to
eradication of corruption, are liable to be bring these rules in conformance with the
rejected as they will, adversely affect the parent Act.7 The Supreme Court has similarly
efficiency of the administration.2 However, challenged attempts to be subject to the RTI.8
neither lack of connection with transparency For instance recently, PIO of the Supreme Court
and accountability nor adverse effect on
administrative efficiency are acceptable
reasons to deny information under the RTI act.
3
4
See Public Information Officer, High Court of Madras v.
Central Information Commission
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47432764/. )Stating that an
This restrictive interpretation of the RTI Act has RTI application must be accompanied by reasons.) The
been particularly stark when information is order was subsequently modified. See mention in Chief
Information Commissioners order in
requested from the courts themselves. Public http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SA_C_2014_00
0473_M_152104.pdf.
Information Officers (PIOs ) of courts, often part 5
See for eg. TNN, CIC asks Delhi High Court to amend its
of the court's registry, often reject applications RTI fees rules, 25th August,2014. Delhi High Court has since
amended its rules, but many High Courts continue this
for reasons outside the framework of the RTI practice. See infra Common Cause.
6
See for eg. Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules,
2006. Section 3, Section 5.
7
Nayak, V. Choraria, V. 2010. An Analysis of the RTI Rules of
1
See for example, Bihar Public Service Commission Vs the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court and the
Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Anr (2012) 13 SCC 61; The Subordinate Courts, Commonwealth Human Rights
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Initiative.
Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336. 8
Aga, A. The Supreme Court Still Adamantly refuses to yield
2
CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 to RTI, The Wire, 3rd September,
3
See Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8, 9 and 23. 2015.http://thewire.in/9856/the-supreme-court-still-adama
None of these exceptions apply here. ntly-refuses-to-yield-to-rti/
5
denied an application seeking details of cases petitions. When the KIC challenged the High
that have been reserved for judgement.9 Court's order in the Supreme Court, the SC
dismissed the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs.
The former Chief Information Commissioner of 1 lakh on the KIC for wasting public money for
India, in an open letter to Chief Justice T.S satisfying their ego.12
Thakur, had lamented the poor implementation
of the RTI by the Supreme Court and the High Many have begun to approach the courts to
10
Courts. As Aniket Aga notes, While the fully implement the RTI act. For example,
government often comes under fire for not Subhash Chandra Agrawal, an RTI activist has
effectively implementing the RTI Act, few have been litigating for judges to release the assets
noticed that Indias highest court violates the held by them to the public. This case is
Act routinely, and with an impunity that makes currently pending before a five-judge bench of
the governments evasion of the RTI Act seem the Supreme Court.13 Similarly, Prashant
benign.11 Bhushan, through his NGO Common Cause has
filed a PIL before the Supreme Court, to direct
An institutional hurdle is that High Courts and the High Courts to bring their RTI-fees in
the Supreme Court are the appellate bodies in compliance with the RTI Act. 14 Similar PILs have
case of appeals against the decision of an been filed in various High Courts, including
information commission. In case information is Delhi and Rajasthan.15
requested from the High Court or the Supreme
Court registry, the courts effectively judge their CHRI has conducted and published studies on
own case and can decide whether to grant or the RTI rules of some High Courts.16 These
not the information. In one such instance, the studies analyse the RTI rules of the High Courts
Karnataka High Court reversed the Karnataka vis-a-vis the RTI act, and suggest changes which
Information Commissioners (KIC) order can bring these rules into compliance with the
directing the High Court registry to release
certified copies of some information/ 12
Karnataka Information Commissioner v. State Public
Information Officer, SLP.(CC) 1853/2013, Supreme Court of
documents regarding guidelines and rules India. Order dated 18th January, 2013.
pertaining to scrutiny and classification of writ http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/SupremeCourt_2013.
pdf
13
Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra
9
Kumar, A.P. Delayed Justice: When judgment day arrives Agrawal. Civil Appeal No..2683 OF 2010. Supreme Court of
too late. LiveMint. 7th June, 2016 India.
14
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/AaR91YL6KuVo3ZcN3q3Jf Common Cause v. High Court of Allahabad, Writ Petition
O/Delayed-justice-When-judgement-day-arrives-too-late.ht (Civil) No. 194 of 2012.Supreme Court of India.
15
ml Mandhani, A. Challenge against Rajasthan High Court RTI
10
Gandhi, S. Open letter to Chief Justice Thakur, Scroll, 6th rules; Court issues notice. LiveLaw. 10th February, 2016.
September 2016. http://www.livelaw.in/challenge-against-rajastan-high-court-
http://scroll.in/article/815742/open-letter-to-chief-justice-th rti-rules-court-issues-notice-on-law-students-plea/
16
akur-the-latest-call-for-judicial-transparency-must-not-be-ig Supra Nayak and Choraria.. See also Nayak, V. Gurung, M.
nored An Analysis of the RTI Rules Applicable to the Rajasthan
11
Supra Aga. High Court and the Subordinate Courts
6
Act. However there has been no research to Ten years after the RTI act came into force, its
inquire into the kind of RTI applications High initial objectives of accountability and
Courts entertain and what the kind of RTI transparency continue to be elusive. The Indian
applications are usually rejected by High Courts. judiciary, while maintaining a rhetoric on
Further, there is no research comparing the government accountability continues to be
attitudes of different High Courts to RTI, in non-transparent and unaccountable. Its stand
actual practice. This project is aimed at filling towards right to Information, a constitutional
this gap and presents the case that there are right according to its own ruling, has been less
different dimensions to RTI compliance by the than satisfactory. This research will hopefully
judiciary, each of which needs independent reveal these trends in more detail, and
study. contribute to greater judicial transparency.
7
Project Methodology
____________________________
There are three basic questions our project crucial information about citizen experience
seeks to answer: relating to RTI. It was one thing to have
unrestricted RTI rules, and quite another to
actually release informations to citizens in
1. What are the RTI practices followed by practice. We wanted to examine the unwritten
various High Courts of India? and informal constraints that each High court
placed on RTI information. We thus decided to
2. What are the types of RTI applications adopt a mixed method- to test both the
in which information is given and in doctrine and practice of RTI responses by
which information is not given by High courts. The practice element we decided,
various High Courts of India? would be tested by actually filing RTI
applications and comparing responses of the
3. What are the reasons given by various various High Courts
High Courts for rejecting RTI
applications? This kind of use of access to information law
for academic research has increased across
Preliminary research on the project was done the globe.18 In India as well, researchers have
through literature review. Our proposal was begun to use data received from RTI
to study the decisions and RTI rules of various responses for research on topics such as drug
High Courts, and try and analyse their general procurement and accessibility.19 Research
perceptions towards RTI. CHRI has already which is primarily targeted towards access to
done a limited study on the RTI rules of some information itself is rarer. One such study
High courts, while the Central Information
18
Commission has also published a broader See for example, Savage, A. and Hyde, R., 2014. Using
freedom of information requests to facilitate research.
comparative study of the RTI rules of all International Journal of Social Research
Methodology,17(3), pp.303-317., See also Booth, A. 2000.
competent authorities. 17
Innovative Uses of the Freedom of Information Act. A
report update for the Research Information Network.
19
See for example,Singh, P.V., Tatambhotla, A.,
We quickly realised however that such a Kalvakuntla, R. and Chokshi, M., 2013. Understanding
formal rule based analyses would miss out public drug procurement in India: a comparative
qualitative study of five Indian states. BMJ open, 3(2),
p.e001987; See also Centre for Internet and Society,
17
Supra Nayak and Choraria. CIC, Comparative Analysis of 2015..Response to RTI Applications from Different States
Rules Framed by Appropriate Government and on Accessibility.
Competent Authority. http://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/response-to-rti-appli
http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/Comparative_Study.pdf. cations-from-different-states-on-accessibility
8
was conducted in the UK, where researchers that the RTI application form must be
compared responses among public obtained under oath.22
authorities to requests for information
regarding whistle blowing complaints and We filed a test application in Patna High
food law.20 We did not find any comparable Court, to see whether these rules were
research projects in India. applied in practice. The high court responded
to our application, asking us to fill the fees in
the accounts counter of the High Court and
Sampling the High Courts
then submit an application, in person, to the
PIO during the working hours of the court.
The project ran from December 2016 to
March 2017. Due to a paucity of time and
It is important to notice that the act itself does
resources, we selected a sample of 10 High
not restrict the method of applying for
Courts for the initial study. Our hope is that,
information. It in fact recognises filing an
given the success of this initial study the
application electronically. Most central and
research can be extended by other
State rules allow the application to be
researchers to other High Courts or even
submitted both in person and by post. In fact,
other kind of courts.
most applications received by PIOs are sent
by post. This is not surprising, since
Our initial plan was to use a randomised
applications by post are far more convenient,
sample, picking our sample High courts for
can be sent from any place in India, are not
different sizes from different geographical
restricted by the working hours of the court.
locations. We soon realised however that such
As we will argue later, it is unclear whether
an approach would fail, since not all High
the high courts even have the authority to
Courts allowed the filing of applications by
restrict the mode of application in their rules.
post or email. For example, the Tripura High
Court rules specifically provides that
Since it was impossible for us to undertake
applications must be submitted in person
trips to High Courts which required such
during the working hours of the court.21
in-person applications, our sample had to
Similarly, the Orissa High Court rules provide
include these lists. After this elimination, the
sample was largely self-selecting, since only
13 high courts allowed applications by post. ,
out of which Jammu and Kashmir High Court
20
Savage, A. and Hyde, R., 2013. Local Authority Handling was eliminated as the RTI act did not apply to
of Freedom of Information Requests: Lessons from a
Research Project. European Journal of Current Legal
Issues, 19(2).
21 22
The High Court of Tripura (Right to The Orissa High Court Right to Information Rules, 2005,
Information )Rules ,2013, Rule 3(1) Rule 4(a)
9
it, and its RTI rules prescribe that the Since our aim was to find out which kind of
23
applicant must be a Kashmiri Resident. questions will be answered by the High Court
Madhya Pradesh, the only High Court in India and which will not, we included some
which has a system of filing RTIs electronically, control questions in our questionnaire.
was eliminated, because despite our repeated These controls were what we considered easy
attempts, we could not file an application questions - for which information was readily
through the e-RTI system.24 A list of the 10 available and which we felt the PIOs would
courts thus included in our sample is in not have any difficulty in answering. Starting
Annexure 1. from these controls, we plan to build a list of
questions with incremental difficulty and
In March 2017, our applications to the High increased possibility of not being answered.
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad were For example, we expect a question like What
rejected due to incorrect name in the Demand is the number of pending cases in the High
25
draft for payment of fees. This was despite Court? to be answered as the information is
the fact that we had made the DDs, only after readily available and already public. However
specifically confirming the beneficiary name a question like, Please give me a copy of the
with the PIOs of each High Court. Since we government appeal in a pending case is likely
had no time to re-file the applications, we had to be rejected. This would help us build a
to drop the High Court of Judicature of rough spectrum of issues each High Court is
Hyderabad from our sample, and complete willing to reveal information about.
our analyses with only 9 High Courts.
While our attempt was to build this spectrum
of responsiveness through our questions, the
Designing the Questionnaire
questions we decided, could not be
completely open-ended. Our focus was on
We proposed to send several applications
information we can use in general for legal
with different questions to each High Court.
system reforms. The idea then was to not only
Our initial aim was to send 10 questions per
focus on responsiveness, but also to make
High Court. These questions would be
sure that any information that we ask, can be
designed capture a "spectrum" of
used fruitfully. Thus questions about
responsiveness , though we thought we could
pendency including docket size,
group questions under single applications for
administrative efficiency as well as judicial
the purpose of cost or experimentation.
transparency including information about
appointments and assets, have special
23
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Right to Information relevance to us. Our hope is that we can
Rules, 2014
24
http://www.mphc.gov.in/e-rti
25
Reply to Application 1, Hyderabad High Court.
10
justify why each question has been included Disclosures, Decisions, Practice and Speed
in any application. respectively.
Incidentally, we also used the opportunity find In the CTI, we allocate 20 points to each of
out what kind of RTI application (single or these categories, making a total scale of 100
multiple questions, legalistic or plain, verbose points. A detailed explanation of all the
or clear, English or local language) ordinarily categories in the CTI scale and how we
get answered by the PIO and which dont. The measure them is given in Annexure 3.
final questionnaire including procedural
adjustments is included as Annexure 2.
Ethical considerations
Court Transparency Index (CTI) An ethical consideration that was brought to

our notice while drafting the proposal for this
project was whether filing RTI applications in
Once we obtained the replies of all High
High Courts knowing well that some of these
Courts, we realised that we would have to
these will be rejected constitutes a waste of
build a quantitative measure in order to
public resources. To this our response is that
compare the responses of different High
our questionnaire contains questions that
courts. We thus, developed the Court
many believe a High Court should answer. As
Transparency Index (CTI), which is a numerical
we have noted above, we included a
grading system for each court's compliance to
questions only if we felt that any response we
the RTI. Again here we include both rule
receive has utility to us and to others. The
compliance as well as practice compliance of
project in general would also increase public
the RTI act. Rule compliance includes criteria
awareness and knowledge about the High
such as compliance of RTI rules of the High
Courts and the legal system. In principle,
Court with the parent act, compliance of the
there is no reason to deny such questions due
High Court with Suo-motu disclosures under
to it being a "waste" of the public authoritys
Section 4 of the RTI act and the general trend
time- the RTI Act certainly doesn't provide
of the decisions of the High Court under the
such an exception. In any event, our attempt
RTI act. Practice compliance includes the
was to as far as possible, to frame our
replies given to actual RTI applications that we
questions such a manner, that they do not
filed as well as the time taken to respond to
require excessive effort from the PIO.
these applications. For the purpose of this
report we call these categories Rules,
11
Project Findings
____________________________
Finding 1: In general, High Courts are median of CTI of all nine High courts at 64 out
of a possible 100 points. Table 1.1. highlights
non-compliant with the Right to Information
the comparative CTI scores of all sampled
Act, 2005. High Courts. Punjab and Haryana High Court
performed best on our model with a CTI of 75,
Our study confirmed the hypothesis that High while Allahabad High Court performed the
Court's perform poorly in terms of worst with a CTI of 52. There was thus a wide
implementing the RTI act. Most High Courts variation in RTI compliance across High Courts,
performed poorly on the CTI scale with the with significant differences in compliance
across our sample list.
Table 1.1. Rankwise ordering of sampled High Courts as per Court Transparency Index (CTI)
Disclos Decisio Practic

Rules Speed Total
ures ns e
Rank High Court
20 20 20 20 20 100
Punjab and Haryana High

1 18.5 9.5 17 10 20 75
Court
Himachal Pradesh High

2 19 5 15 13 17 69
Court
3 Mumbai High Court 16 10 14 10 18 68
4 Delhi High Court 17 12.5 11.5 9 14 64
4 Kolkata High Court 19.5 4 12.5 12.5 15.5 64
6 Kerala High Court 14.5 9.5 13 10.5 14.5 62
7 Karnataka High Court 18.5 5.5 3 13 17 57
12
8 Chennai High Court 16 10 12 5.5 10 53.5
9 Allahabad High Court 12.5 10 13 8 8.5 52
High Courts performed best on the Rules disclosures, practice and speed, performed
criteria, with the average high court having a relatively well on the decisions criteria. On the
score of 16.9 out of a possible 20. This means other hand, Karnataka High Court which
that the RTI rules of our sample High Courts performed well on the criteria of rules,
were mostly compliant to the parent act. This is disclosures, practice and speed, performed
unsurprising, given that our sample already has poorly in the decisions criteria, by adopting a
a selection bias towards rules which allow RTI manifestly hostile stand towards RTI in its
applications by post. High courts performed decisions.28 This too confirmed our hypothesis,
most poorly on the disclosures criteria, with the that a High Court could adopt a transparency
average high court having a score of 7.6 out of rhetoric in its judicial side but still be
a possible 20. Most High courts thus were non-compliant with the RTI act as an institution.
non-compliant with fulfilling their sou-moto
obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Finding 2. The compliance with the RTI Act,
There was a significant positive correlation

2005 increases with RTI workload.
between the Rules criteria and the Practice as
well as Speed criteria.26 This means that High One of the possible reasons that High courts
Courts which have compliant RTI rules, have a are not compliant with the RTI act, is that the
tendency to be more responsive in practice to RTI presents an unmanageable extra workload
RTI applications. However, there was no on already overburdened court officers. The
significant correlation between a High court's PIO for High Courts is usually a registrar of the
judicial decisions regarding RTI and RTI court and has the additional responsibility of
compliance on its administrative side.27 For looking after administrative functions under the
example, Allahabad High Court which registry.
performed poorly on on the criteria of rules,
This reason is echoed by the Madras High Court,
26
Applying Pearsons correlation, the value of R is 0.6813.
which in a Judgement stated:
This is a moderate positive correlation, which means there
is a tendency for high rules scores go with high practice and
speed variable scores (and vice versa).
The value of R2, the coefficient of determination, is
0.4642.The P-Value is 0.043307. The result is significant at p
< 0.05. 28
See below Karnataka High Court. Although the decisions
27
Applying Pearsons correlation,the value of R is criteria was done through a random sampling of
-0.1714.The P-Value is 0.660019. The result is not significant judgements, we acknowledge the possibility of a error due
at p < 0.05. to the small size of the judgment sample. See Annexure 3.
13
Chart 2.1. Number of RTI applications filed in sampled High Courts in 2016.
if the informations sought are

divulged, then, it will open
floodgates/Pandora Box compelling The Madras High Court thus seems to be
the Petitioner/High Court to supply suggesting that in order to ensure efficient
the informations sought for by the
functioning ,courts should be less compliant
concerned Requisitionists as a matter
of routine, without any rhyme or with providing information under the RTI act,.
reasons/restrictions as the case may
be. Therefore, some self restrictions
Chart 2.1. illustrates the number of RTI
are to be imposed in regard to the
supply of informations in this regard. applications filed last year in each High
If the informations are directed to be Court.30 On average, 96 RTI applications were
furnished or supplied with, then,
filed in any given High Court every month.
certainly, it will impede and hinder the
regular, smooth and proper High Courts who maintain disposal and
functioning of the Institution viz., High pendency figures, recorded that they were
Court (an independent authority able to dispose off almost all applications
under the Constitution of India, free
received in any given month. In general,
from Executive or Legislature).29
(emphasis supplied)
30
Kolkata High Court did not give overall figures of RTIs
filled, and replied that the figures were disaggregated
29
Registrar General, High Court of Madras v. K.Elango and amongst the original and appellate side. Himachal
Anr. W.P.No.20485 of 2012. Madras High Court. Pradesh did not have 2016 figures and instead has
Judgement dated 17.04.2013. provided the figures from April 2015 to March 2016.
14
Chart 2.2. RTI density in sampled High Courts in 2016.
larger courts (by bench size) receive more RTI then that paradoxically, courts which are
31
applications than smaller courts. faced with the highest amount of RTI
workload, are the most compliant with the RTI
However, If we chart the RTI density of all act. We currently do not have the data to
High Courts, (Chart 2.1.) we can see that determine why this correlation exists. One
smaller High Courts such as Punjab and possible hypothesis is that courts which
Haryana can have a much higher rates of RTI receive more RTI applications have greater
per Judge than larger High Courts such as public pressure to conform to the act. In any
Allahabad. event, we leave it for future researchers to
explain this relationship.
It is unclear why Punjab and Haryana High
Court receives the most number of RTI
applications. What is clear however, is the RTI Finding 3. High Courts reject a high number
density of a particular court has a strong
of RTI applications- mostly for reasons
positive relationship with CTI.32 It would seem
outside the RTI Act.
31
Applying Pearsons correlation, the value of R is 0.5285.
This is a moderate positive correlation. The value of R2,
the coefficient of determination, is 0.2793. While most courts were forthcoming in
32
Applying Pearsons correlation, The value of R is 0.82. maintaining and providing us their RTI
This is a strong positive correlation. The value of R2, the
coefficient of determination, is 0.6724. The P-Value is application data, RTI rejection data was
0.012683. The result is significant at p < 0.05.
15
Table 3.1. RTI rejections in the year 2016 for four courts
RTI
Section 8,9 Rejections
S.N Name of Total RTI appllicati Total Percent
and 24 for other
o the Court applications ons Rejections Rejected
rejections Reasons
Accepted
Allahaba
1 d High 1298 959 13 326 339 26.12%
Court
Delhi
2 High 1053 787 15 251 266 25.26%
Court
Karnatak
3 a High 591 293 30 268 298 50.42%
Court
Mumbai Break-up
Break-up not
4 High 1488 756 not 732 49.19%
available
Court available
4430 2795 58 1577 1635 36.91%

Total
maintained only by a few high courts. rejected- Section 8, Section 9 and Section 24.33
Through our RTI applications and through As Table 3.1. shows in our sample of four
disclosures given the court's website, we were courts, more than one-third of the
able to obtain RTI rejection statistics for just 33
Section 8 of the RTI act states that there shall be no
four High Courts namely - Delhi, Mumbai, obligation to give information which prejudicially affect
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security,
Karnataka and Allahabad. This is despite the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State,
statutory requirement of maintaining an RTI relation with foreign State or leads to incitement of an
offence, information specifically prohibited by a court,
register with these details as well as the information which affects parliamentary privilege, third
party intellectual property, fiduciary information, foreign
practice of PIOs of sending RTI data to their
governmen confidential information, information which
respective Central or State information would endanger a person, information which could
impede an ongoing investigation, cabinet papers and
Commissioners . private information of an individual. Section 9 of the RTI
act states that a public authority may reject information
whose disclosure would result in third-party copyright
The RTI act contains three provisions under infringement. Section 24 provides that intelligence and
security organisations as the government may notify are
which an application for information can be exempt from requests for information under the act.
16
Table 3.2. Break-up of reasons given by the Karnataka High Court for rejecting RTI
applications.
Percentage of
S.N Number of
Reason for Rejecting Application Total
o Rejections
Rejections
Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act for not coming under the
1 59 22.01
ambit of information
Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act for disproportionately

2 1 0.37
diverting the resources of the public authority
3 Transfer to OPIO 43 16.04
Under Rule 4 of the High Court of Karnataka (Vigilance Cell)

4 22 8.21
(Functions) Rules, 197134
Under Rule 3 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee

5 8 2.99
and Cost) Rules, 200535
6 Under Rule 14 (More than 500 words) 36 0 0.00
On account of the Decision of the Karnataka High Court in

the case of SPIO and Deputy Registrar (Establishment) High,
7 Court of Karnataka v. Anbarasan ILR 2009 Kar 3890 which 105 39.18
confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLA(C) No. 4876/12
dated 18.01.2013.37
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act- information available to a

8 6 2.24
person in his fiduciary relationship.
34
The rule provide that The Special Officer and all the members of the staff of the Vigilance Cell shall observe strict and
absolute secrecy and shall not in any manner divulge any information which may come to their knowledge in the course of
their work.
35
The rule provides that every application must be accompanied by a fees of Rs.10 in the favour of Registrar General,
Karnataka High Court
36
It is unclear which Rule 14 the PIO was referring to. While the number of rejections under this category is 0, the fact that it
was mentioned at all in the break-up would mean that it is considered a valid ground for rejection.
37
The decision in SPIO & DR.(EST.), High Court of Karnataka v. Anbarasan ILR 2009 Karnataka 3890 held that the held that the
provisions of RTI Act cannot be invoked for obtaining certified copies of the documents of the judicial proceedings as they are
governed by the Rules of Practice.
17
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act- information which relates to

personal information, the disclosure of which has not
9 24 8.96
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Other subsections of Section 8(1), Section 9 and Section 24

10 0 0.00
of the RTI Act
applications got rejected, most of them due to Section 2(f) of the RTI act.39 This was the
reasons outside these three provisions. This is reason given by Mumbai High Court, on our
a. remarkably high number compared to the request for information about the assets of
rejection rates of other public authorities. For Judges. In addition to these, available in
example, the RTI statistics submitted to the website , information not available in form ,
Central Information Commission show that information kept in a sealed envelope were
Central government departments, rejected some of the substantive reasons given by
only 6.62% of RTI applications, with only PIOs of High Courts to reject our applications.
2.84% being rejected due to reasons outside
the RTI act.38 Karnataka High Court is the only court which
had a break- up of all reasons outside Section
If not Section 8, 9 or 23 of the act, what are 8,9 and 24 for rejecting applications. ( Table
the grounds that PIOs use to reject 3.2.) The highest percentage of rejections
applications? Applications that we sent were (39.18%) were due to the decision of the
often rejected due to procedural grounds Karnataka High Court in Karnataka v.
such as fees not adequate, excess fees paid, Ambarasan, where the court held that
application not signed and incorrect name in certified copies of court documents cannot be
the demand draft. Some of these were valid, given under RTI. Some of the reasons given in
while others, as we shall argue later, should Table 3.2. such as the one referring to the
not be grounds for a wholesale rejection of High Court of Karnataka (Vigilance Cell)
the application. In many cases, the application (Functions) Rules, 1971 are particularly invalid
is rejected on the ground that the information given that the RTI act specifies that the
sought is not information as defined by
39
information as defined in Section 2(j) of the RTI act
means any material in any form, including records,
documents, memos, e mails, opinions, advices, press
releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports,
38
papers, samples, models, data material held in any
https://counterview.org/2017/03/18/four-out-of-10-right-t electronic form and information relating to any private
o-information-pleas-were-rejected-on-grounds-not-permi body which can be accessed by a public authority under
tted-under-rti-act/ any other law for the time being in force;
18
provisions of this Act shall have effect Section 28 of the RTI act allows competent
notwithstanding anything inconsistent authorities to make rules regarding fees and
therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, any other matter which is required to be, or
1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the may be, prescribed.43 These rules however
time being in force or in any instrument should be made to carry out the provisions of
having effect by virtue of any law other this Act.44 In many cases, High Courts use
than this Act.40 (emphasis supplied) Rules of these provisions to make rules which are
other acts thus simply cannot be cited as either directly ultra vires the provisions of the
justifications for rejecting applications for act or indirectly create restrictions which
information. In fact, as has been clarified by frustrate the purpose of the act.
the Central Information Commission(CIC) time
and again, it is not open for public authorities Additional Restrictions on Information
to reject RTI applications other than for

41 As mentioned earlier, the RTI act specifies the
reasons given under the act. In one order
reasons for which RTI applications may be
the CIC while holding that the Delhi District
rejection. Some rules themselves contain
Court. (Right to Information Rules) 2008,
restrictions which do not come under any of
cannot create exceptions other than those of
the provisions under the act.
the RTI Act held,
Once an applicant seeks information
as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, Almost all high court rules, for example,
the same cannot be denied to the contain a provision prohibiting requests for
information seeker except on any of
information about court orders and
the grounds mentioned in Sections 8
or 9 of the RTI Act. The Public judgement. Delhi High Court, for example,
Information Officer or the appellate contains a restriction which states that
authorities cannot add and introduced
information which relates to judicial
new reasons or grounds for rejecting
furnishing of information.42 functions and duties of the Court and matters
incidental and ancillary thereto would not be
Finding 4. Most High Courts notify RTI rules disclosed.45 Similarly Allahabad High Court
has a provision which states, No information
which frustrate the purpose of the RTI act.
which can be obtained under the provision of
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in case
of High Court and under General Rule
(Civil/Criminal) in case of subordinate Courts
40
RTI Act, Section 22.
41
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/most-rti-applicatio
ns-rejected-for-other-reasons_746976.html 43
RTI Act, Section 28.
42 44
Vijay Kumar v. K.S. Rawat, Decision No. Ibid.
45
CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG/12351, Central Information Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006,
Commission. Section 5(a)
19
will be provided.46 As already mentioned, the communication.48 The act also recognises that,
RTI Act overriding effect on any other acts or the application may be made electronically.49
Rules. In any event, nothing in Section 28 Presumably, the intention of the RTI act is to
gives power to the High Court to create any give the widest leeway to applicants, in
additional restrictions to the Right to making an application for information. The
Information under the Act. Central Rules also provide, that the
applications can be made by post or
Sometimes these RTI rules, directly contradict electronically, through the fees must reach
the provisions of the act. For example, Section the public authority within one week of the
6(3) (ii) of the RTI Act provides that if a public application.
authority receives an application for
information which pertains to some other Many High Court rules however expressly
public authority, he or she will have to regulate the form in which an RTI application
transfer the application to the appropriate can be made. As we have already highlighted
authority within 5 days. Some High Court RTI in our sampling section, several High Courts
rules however provide that the application simply reject applications made by post. The
need not be transferred. Gujarat High Courts Rules of the Jharkhand High Court, for
RTI rules for example, provide that: example, provide that an application must be
If the requested information does not made in person, during the working hours of
fall within the jurisdiction of the the court.
authorised person, it shall order
return of the application to the
applicant within thirty days from the Similarly, many High Courts prescribe that an
date of receipt of the application, application must be made in a prescribed
advising the applicant,wherever
Form. Some of these forms, contain personal
possible, about the authority concern
to whom the application should be information which is unnecessary under the
made. The application fee deposited RTI act -such as Father's Name and Age .
in such cases shall not be refunded. 47
Others contain requirements which are ultra
vires the act. For example, Allahabad High
Form of Application
court says that each application must be
The RTI Act does not prescribe any form to accompanied by a positive assertion that the
apply for information. Infact, as a DoPT motive for obtaining such information is
circular clarifies, the application may be made proper and legal. In the case of Orissa High
on plain paper and need only contain the Court, the rules specify that the Form for
address of the applicant for the purpose of 48
http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/its-2-to-1-on-r
46
Allahabad (Right to Information) Rules, 2006. ti-while-pm-modi-and-supreme-court-support-transparen
47
The Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules, cy-cic-is-in-denial/
49
2005, Section 4(1). RTI Act, Section 6(1)
20
application must be obtained from the PIO conformity with the central rules.52 Later,
under oath . Delhi High Court, on its own accord, has
brought its application fees down to Rs. 10.53
Madhya Pradesh High Court is the first and
only High court which has the provision to Most High Courts, have followed the Delhi
make applications electronically. However, High Court, in reducing the RTI application
the e-RTI form of the High court is itself fees. However, discrepancies continue with
restrictive. It asks for several details, such as many high courts. Gujarat and Allahabad High
phone number and email address in order to Court for example, continue to charge a fees
even access the form. Payment of RTI fees can of Rs. 500, for the category of tender
only be done through a valid State Bank of documents/ bids/ quotation/ business
India credit card. In any event, the application contract.54 As Chart 4.1 illustrates for other
did not work, despite repeated attempts by applications, most High Courts have a fees of
the researchers. Rs. 50 or less.
Fees
All High court rules also prescribe some fees
for printing or photocopying the information.
When High Court's first started notifying their
This fees is calculated on a per page basis,
respective RTI rules, they began to set
and intimated to the applicant. Applicants
extraordinarily high application fees. For
must then pay this per page fees, before
example, Delhi High Court , Rajasthan High
information can be sent to them. In actual
Court and Allahabad High Courts rules
practice however, we found that, except in
initially prescribed a fees of 500 Rs. per
one case, PIOs did not ask for this fees when
application.50 Many believed that such a high
the information was less than 10 pages. In
fees was unduly restrictive and substantively
fact, in one instance almost 30 pages of
ultra vires the provisions of the act. This was
information was sent by the court, without
particularly the case since the RTI (Central)
requesting for the per page fees. It would
Rules, 2012 prescribed a fees of Rs. 10. In the
seem that Public authorities know that the
case of Delhi High Court, the fees was
cost and effort required in the to-and-fro with
challenged in a PIL by law students.51 The
the applicant for this per page fees, in most
Central information Commissioner also wrote
cases, exceeds the cost of information to be
to the High Court to bring its fees in
52
http://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/delhi-
hc-yields-to-whip-writ-and-amends-rules-that-made-court
50
Supra, CIC, comparative analyses. -rtis-expensive-but-is-still-wary-of-roving-inquiries-201602
51
25-7265
53
http://www.livelaw.in/delhi-high-court-admits-petition-by- Ibid.
54
4-law-students-for-harmonization-of-hc-rti-rules-with-rti-a The Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules,
ct-and-rules/ 2005, Rule 8.
21
Chart 4.1. Comparison of RTI application fee and per page fees across sampled high courts
sent. For this reason, in our comments sent to The Central RTI rules also prescribe a fees of
the Department of Personnel on the Central Rs. 2 per page.
RTI Rules, we have recommended that the
per page fees for the first few pages be Payment Method.
included in the application cost for the RTI. 55
In general, most high courts seem to accept
Despite the fact that the fees is rarely asked in almost all payment methods including IPO,
practice, the per page fees on the rules is high cash, Demand draft. However. Some High
for almost all High Courts. As can be seen in Courts however specify and restrict payment
Chart 4.1.,the average the per page fees for methods . For example, Gujarat High Court
information is Rs. 5. Allahabad High Court has prescribes that the fees must be paid in
the highest per page fees at Rs. 15 per page. Court Stamps. Similarly, the RTI rules of
These per page fees are unduly exorbitant, Orissa High Court state that the fees must be
considering that the actual cost of in-house paid through Non-Judicial Stamp. 56
printing or photocopying is less than Rs. 2.
55 56
See below Resources See Annexure 1
22
In our sampled list of High courts, most

accept all payment methods though there are
Our questionnaire was designed to have a
some exceptions which do not accept Indian
spectrum of questions ranging from those
Postal Orders. No High Court, except Madhya
that were easy to answer to the ones we felt
Pradesh, accepts RTI fees by electronic
were difficult. For example, our first
payment.
application applied for information about
court-pendency. High-Courts are mandated to
Finding 5. Most High Courts do not make maintain their workload figures, and the
suo-moto declarations as per Section 4 (1) pendency figures of each High Court are
included in their respective annual report. To
of the the RTI Act
answer the question thus, the PIO merely
needed to extract the annual report, and
Section 4(1) of the RTI act, provides that every provide information which was already
information authority must put some compiled and ready. Compare this to the the
information in the public domain. Most public third application, where we asked each court
authorities thus put up information mandated to provide the number of working and non
by 4(1) on their respective websites. working days of the court. While all High
courts maintain a court calendar, not all High
However, most High Courts comply with this courts keep these two figures tabulated. A PIO
provision very poorly with this provision. would thus have to actually calculate the
Some courts, such as the Kolkata High Court number of days, on which the court was
do not even have a section on sou-moto functioning.
disclosures on their websites. Others, like the
Karnataka High Court have symbolic sections, As expected, courts were more willing to give
with little or no substantive information in their pendency figures, than the days in which
them. No High Court updates the information they worked and did not work in the previous
annually, as required by the act. Further, no year. Many courts, simply provided us with a
High Court provides this information in its copy of the court calendar in response to the
regional language. third application. One court which sent the
calendar, Himachal High Court, made this
Finding 6. While High Courts are ready to reason explicit. In his reply the PIO stated, it
is submitted that the P.I.O or the custodian of
provide information already at hand, they
record is not required to interpret or deduce
are reluctant to provide information which
needs excess effort to compile.
23
Chart 6.1. Plotting CTI practice scores based on question difficulty
any conclusion for the applicant from the the one in which it is maintained. In such
57
relevant record. In fact, in some High Courts cases, it is incumbent on the PIO to convert
simply denied the information which required the information into such form or show that it
excess processing by stating, Information not disproportionately diverts his or her
available in the form . 58 resources. The calculation of working and
non-working days does not, in our opinion,
The RTI act itself does not state that the PIO is require a high amount of diversion of
not required to do any form of compilation, resources. Many High Courts, have in fact,
tabulation and calculation. In fact Section 7(9) given a precise break-up, and we do not think
of the RTI act states, information shall there are any reasons for courts to refuse to
ordinarily be provided in the form in which do so. 59
it is sought unless it would
disproportionately divert the resources of the As the trend curve in Chart 6.1. makes clear,
public authority or would be detrimental to there is a greater possibility that a High Court
the safety or preservation of the record in will answer a easy question--one which
question (emphasis added). In fact, it would merely requires replying with a record that
seem that the RTI envisages that applicants the court already maintains-- over a difficult
may want information in a different form than one-- which requires some form of effort from
the court such as compilation, tabulation and
57
Reply to RTI Application No.3, Himachal Pradesh High
59
Court See for example, Reply to RTI Application No. 3,
58
Reply to RTI Application No. 5, Kerala High Court. Allahabad High Court.
24
calculation. Even if we control for other or due to a specific policy, to provide court
factors which can affect the PIOs reply, the information under RTI. It is important to
60
trend curve shows the same pattern. recognise that the RTI act itself doesnt
prohibit applications for information available
under other acts or rules. On the contrary, as
Finding 7. High Courts do not provide
we have already mentioned, Section 22
information which can be obtained under specifically provides that the act overrides any
the rules other act or rule.
In Application 8, we requested all sampled

As we have already seen, many High Court RTI
High Courts to provide us with a certified copy
rules provide that information which can be
of an order in a case related to RTI. All these
obtained under the rules of procedure of the
orders were public and available in each High
High court, will not be provided under RTI. For
Courts website. All we were asking was for
example, the Tripura High Court RTI rules
the High Court to print these orders, and
provide that information shall not be provided
certify that they are true copies of the order
under RTI if, it can be obtained by High Court
passed by the court. In terms of actual effort,
of Tripura Rules or High Court of Tripura
it merely required the printing of the court
(Civil/ Criminal) Rules. Similarly, as Table 3.2.
order from the high court website, and a
shows, the most common reason for the
stamp of authenticity by the PIO -- a practice
Karnataka High Court rejecting applications
which was already followed by the PIO for
was that the information could be obtained
other replies. However, despite the apparent
under the High Court rules.
simplicity of our request, no High Court
provided us with a certified copy.61 The mere
Before the enactment of RTI, registries
use of the word Certified copy, a term of art
traditionally dealt with matters about court
used in the court rules, made our applications
information under the High Court's rules of
infructuous. All high courts rejected our
procedure . For example, if one wanted a
applications with the reason that certified
certified copy of an order in the Bombay High
copies can only be obtained under the court
Court, one would have to file an application
rules of procedure.
under the Bombay High Court Rules. The RTI,
through its simplified procedure, lower costs
The question whether court orders, which
and general accessibility conflicts with these
were traditionally given under each court's
court rule. Court registries are however
rules of procedure can be given under RTI, is
reluctant , either due to bureaucratic inertia
currently disputed in several forums.
60
Applications 1, 3,5,7 and 9 can act as controls in this
61
regard. See Reply to Application 8, All High Courts.
25
Decisions by several different High Courts information, that is placed by a public

have held that the rules of procedure of the authority on its website, is already available in
62
High Courts override the RTI act. The Central the public domain and is, therefore, not under
Information Commissioner however, in light the control of the public authority. It can be
of Section 22 of the RTI act, has held that the obtained by any interested person by
63 67
RTI act overrides rules of the court. The consulting the relevant website.
question is now pending before the Supreme
Court.64 Admittedly, information already on the
website of the High Court is in the public
domain and can be easily accessed. However,
Finding 8. High Courts do not provide
there are several reasons why a person may
information already put up on the court want information already on the High Court
website. website. Firstly, one may want an officially
certified copy of a certain piece of information.
Another trend that we noticed in the replies to RTI replies are stamped by the PIO, and can
out applications, was that High Courts do not be used as authenticated copies for the
provide information already available on the purpose of evidence or documentation.
High Court website. For example, to Secondly, the applicant may not have access
Application number 2 which requested for a to the internet. Thirdly, the applicant may not
copy of the High Court rules, the Karnataka know English and may want information in a
High Court replied, information already regional language. The information on the
available in website. 65
A similar reply was website is usually in English. In our
received from Delhi High Court, on our query questionnaire, Application 2 for example was
in Application number 5 about RTI Statistics. 66 sent in the regional language of the court.
The CIC seems to agree with this stance of the Nonetheless, most of these applications were
High Courts. In one order, the CIC held, rejected as either being vague or because
the information was already available in the
62
SPIO & DR.(EST.), High Court of Karnataka v. Anbarasan
website. In any event, the RTI act itself does
ILR 2009 Karnataka 3890, not limit applications for information already
http://www.livelaw.in/hc-rules-prevail-rti-act-supreme-cou
rt-issues-notice-registrar-gujarat-high-court/. on the website. As such there was no reason
63
R S Misra vs Supreme Court Of India, Decision No.
to deny it.
CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG/12351, Central Information
Commission. The Delhi High Court has stayed the matter
and, further, restrained the CIC from hearing matters on
similar questions. The case remains pending before the What was however, more worrying was the
HC trend of some High Courts, to reject
64
http://www.livelaw.in/hc-rules-prevail-rti-act-supreme-cou
67
rt-issues-notice-registrar-gujarat-high-court/ Shri Girish Prasad Gupta v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
65
Reply to Application No. 2, Karnataka High Court. in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002313, Central Information
66
Reply to Application No. 5, Delhi High Court. Commission.
26
applications with the reason that information CICs decision to the Delhi High Court. The
is available on the website, even though it is Delhi High Court upheld the order of the CIC,
not. For example. to a query about the and held,
number of RTI applications rejected for Judges of the superior courts should
non-RTI reasons by the court, the Mumbai make public their assets as they are not
less accountable than the judicial officers
High Court replied that the information was
of the lower courts who are bound by
already available in the court website.68 We service rules to declare assets. Judicial
found that what was on the website was the independence is not a judges personal
privilege but a responsibility cast upon
number of RTI applications rejected and not
him. A Judge must keep himself
the breakup of reasons for rejection. Similarly, absolutely above suspicion, to preserve
to a question about the designation of senior the impartiality and independence of the
judiciary and to have the public
advocates, Himachal Pradesh High Court
confidence thereof.71
replied that the information was available on
the website.69 After an extensive search, we The order of the High Court was challenged in
were unable to find any information on the Supreme Court, where it is pending before
designation of senior advocates on the a constitutional bench.72 Later, Judges of
Himachal Pradesh court website. various High Courts and the Supreme Court,
suo moto began putting up their assets on the
Finding 9. High Court registries do not court websites.73
provide information about the Judicial

Application Number 10 that we sent to all
Assets High Courts, applied for information about
the assets of the justices of the High Court as
One of the most lasting controversies of RTI well as the district court. All our applications
jurisprudence in India is the one about Judicial for the assets of High Court Judges were
Assets. RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal rejected. In cases where the judges of the high
had filed a RTI application with the PIO of the court has suo moto declared their assets on
Supreme Court requesting for information the court website, the replies directed us to
regarding Judges Assets. The RTI was rejected the website.74 In some cases, the application
by the PIO of the Supreme Court, but on
71
Secretary General, Supreme Court ... vs Subhash
appeal, was allowed by the CIC.70 The Chandra Agarwal ,LPA No.501/2009, Delhi High Court,
Supreme Court registry appealed against the Judgement dated 12th January, 2010.
72
Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra
Agrawal. Civil Appeal No..2683 OF 2010. Supreme Court
of India.
68 73
Reply to Application 5, Mumbai High Court.
69
Reply to Application 9, Himachal Pradesh High Court. http://www.livemint.com/Politics/wktNC40449U4ACuMkN
70
i1AI/Should-the-Supreme-Court-come-under-RTI.html
74
https://barandbench.com/will-information-judges-appoint Reply to Application No. 10, Punjab and Haryana High
ments-assets-fall-rti-act-constitution-bench-decide/ Court, Kerala High Court
27
was rejected outright as affecting the privacy query could not be answered within 30 days,
of Judges.75 Finally, in the case of Calcutta the PIO sent a reply stating that our
High Court, the reply stated that the assets of application is under process and would take
the High Court judges are kept in a sealed more time to complete. 78
76
envelope. Even though District Judges are
not pari materia to High Court Judges, and are In very rare cases the applications took more
bound by service rules to disclose their assets, that 40 days, though in one case the High
not a single High Court provided us with the Court took 74 days to respond.79 In some
asset list of district court judges. cases, the High Court has not responded to
our applications by the cut-off date to the
There are two possible reasons for this project (30th April 2017). In fact, there have
hesitation amongst the PIOs in releasing been reported cases where the High Court
information about the judicial branch. Firstly, has taken a year to reject a RTI application. 80
registries know that any appeal to them will
finally be decided by the Judges of their High As can be seen in Chart 10.1, the difficulty of
Court. Secondly, court registries are ultimately the question has a slight negative correlation
accountable to the judicial branch, especially with the number of days it takes to respond.
the Chief Justice of the High Court. Registries The inference we can draw from this is that
may thus fear adverse repercussions from the when standard rejections are available to the
Judiciary, if information which may embarrass High Courts, such as in the case of a request
the Judiciary is released. PIOs may thus avoid for the certified copy of the order or the
the risk of judicial repercussions by denying assets of the Judges, PIOs take very little time
information which has the potential of irking to respond. On the other hand ,when the
the judicial branch. request for information is accepted, collecting,
compiling and sending the information takes
Finding 10. High Courts typically take time. In fact, in the case of Kolkata High Court,
the court specifically replied that the
around 3 weeks to reply to a RTI application.
information requested would take time to
compile.81
The RTI act specifies that the information
must be given as soon as possible or within 30
77
days. In our applications, we found that the 78
Reply to Application No. 1, Madras High Court, Kolkata
applications on an average took around 21 High Court
79
Reply to Application No. 1 Madras High Court.
days or three weeks. In some cases, when the 80
Imranullah S., M. High Court takes a year to reply to RTI
application. The Hindu. 17th March, 2016.
75
Reply to Application No. 10, Madras High Court, http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/high-cour
Mumbai High Court t-takes-a-year-to-reply-to-rti-application/article8363534.ec
76
Reply to Application No. 10, Kolkata High Court. e.
81
77
RTI Act, Section 7(1). Reply to Application No. 1, Kolkata High Court
28
Chart 10.1. Scatter plot for number of days taken for PIO to reply to different questions
Finding 11. High Courts in their judgements

This is confirmed by the fact that there is a
generally decide against PIOs of other
positive correlation between the practice CTI
scores and the number of days taken by the institutions, and in favour of PIOs of their
High Court to respond.82 own court.
Chart 10.2 illustrates a comparison of the

In creating the the decisions criteria of the CTI,
number of days taken by our sampled High
we decided to pick up an average of 9 random
Courts to reply to an average applications. As
judgements concerning the RTI Act from each
is evident, there are slow high courts and
High Court. Some High Court however had
there are fast high courts. Punjab and
given fewer than 9 judgements., We ended up
Haryana High Court, despite having the
looking at a total of 67 decisions from all High
highest RTI density is the fastest High Court
Courts. The pattern that emerged from them
along with Delhi with a average response
is given in Table 11.1. In total, the High Court
time of 8 days. Chennai high Court is the
decided in favour of the PIO and against the
slowest high court with a average
release of information under RTI in 36% of the
response time of 37 days. cases. However, if we only look at case in
which the Public authority from whom the
information was being asked was the High
82
Applying Pearson's correlation, The value of R is 0.5469. Court itself, this number increases to 70%.
This is a moderate positive correlation. The value of R2,
the coefficient of determination, is 0.2991. In other words, in a majority of sample
29
Chart 10.2. Comparative response times of sampled High Courts
cases, in which the High Court was itself a party, It may be argued that our sample size is too
the applicant was denied information.The stark small and varied to make generalised
difference in the percentage of judgements conclusions. Even in this small sample however,
against the applicant, when the public authority we noticed that the same High Court was giving
is the High Court vis-a-vis when it is some other radically different decisions depending on the
institution highlights a point we had made public authority under scrutiny. For example,
earlier about the attitude of High Courts the Madras High Court in one case held that the
towards RTI. It would seem that the High Court address of a retired timescale SubPost
perceive themselves as enforcers of Master, who was drawing his pension from
transparency in the executive and favour the Gudur Head Post Office, Nellore District could
application of the RTI when it comes to other be disclosed under RTI in order that a decree
institutions. However, when it comes to their could be executed against him in public
own institution, they are far less enthusiastic interest.83 In contrast, where Information was
about the RTI. Transparency and accountability sought from the Madras High Court Registry,
are essentially used as catchwords by the the court held that the information could not
Judges to police the other, while continuing to be released under RTI as the applicant, has
remain opaque themselves. 83
M.Kaliaperumal Vs Central Information Commission and
Ors, W.P.NO.16070 of 2009, Madras High Court, Judgement
dated 18.11.2009.
30
Table 11.1. Percentage judgements in favour of PIO when High Court is the public authority.
Public Total Sample Judgements in favour of the % Judgements in

Authority Judgements PIO favour of the PIO
Non- High
57 17 30%
Court
High Court 10 7 70%
Total 67 24 36%
deprecated the practice [of the court] in the provisions of the RTI act. This we believe ,is
overloading the Registry of this Court by one of the main reasons, that the High Courts
making several queries or complaints one after are not compliant with RTI. Unlike the executive,
another and following the same under the RTI who have the judiciary to reign them in, High
84
Act. Courts are virtually unaccountable in their
compliance with the RTI act. The CIC, which can
One of the problems is that in case the order public authorities across India to release
information is sought from a High Court, the information under the RTI cannot do so to the
High Court registry can file a Writ Petition High Court. In case it does, the High Courts are
against the order of the CIC, in the same High quick to reverse its decisions, and maintain its
Court. Effectively, High Courts act as a judge in hegemony over its own information.
their own cause, and with impunity disregard
84
The PIO Vs. The CIC, W.P.No.26781 of 2013, Madras High
Court, Judgement dated 17.09.2014
31
Analysis of Individual High Courts

____________________________
32
Allahabad High Court

____________________________
High Court Size of High Jurisdiction RTIs filed in

Location Benches Court Bench over States 2016 RTI Density
Allahabad Lucknow 82 Uttar Pradesh 1298 15.83
Court Transparency Index
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 12.5 9/9
Disclosures 10 2/9
Decisions 13 4/9
Practice 8 8/9
Speed 8.5 9/9
Total 52 9/9
Rules
Criteria (See Annexure Rating

3 for the CTI rating (out of
S.No system) 2) Comments
The Rules of the Allahabad High Court can be found
here.
(http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/UttarPradeshShas
Does the High Court
1 2 an3530Dt20-09-2006.pdf) . They have been amended
have RTI Rules ?
several times
( http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/rti_23-05-08.pdf)
(http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/rti_18-07-12.pdf)
33
and
(http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/rti_14-04-13.pdf)
Does the High Court

The High Court prescribes an RTI application fees of Rs.
2 specify a fees of Rs. 10 1
50.
or less except postage?
Do the rules clearly list

The rules lay down that the fees should be paid to
the fees, payment
3 2 PIO,High Court, Madras/Treasury Challan through
method, Name of the
cash/demand draft/Indian Postal Order
beneficiary ?
Do the rules allow all Electronic payment as well as Indian Postal Orders are
4 1
payment methods ? not accepted.
Do the rules allow an

application to be made The rules allow the application to be made by post, but
5 1.5
electronically and by not electronically.
post?
No information which can be obtained under the

provision of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in
case of High Court and under General Rule
Do the rules contain no (Civil/Criminal) in case of subordinate Courts will be
other exception other provided
6 1
than the ones in the RTI Central Public Information Officer will not entertain any
Act? application from any citizen for providing any
information relating to matters, which are pending
adjudication before the High Court or Courts
subordinate thereto
-Every application shall be made for one particular item

of information only
Do the rules contain a -Should be requested for with a positive assertion that
form, which stipulates the motive for obtaining such information is proper and
7 0.5
procedures other than legal;
the ones in the RTI act. -not otherwise against any law or practice prevailing in
the material regard
Do the rules provide for

8 appeal without 2 The rules do not prescribe any fees for Appeals.
payment of fees.
34
Do the rules provide a

9 response per page fees 0.5 Rs. 15 is the fees for each page of information.
of Rs. 2 or less
If the Central Public Information Officer fails to give

Do the rules contain no
decision on the request of information within the
10 other provision 1
prescribed period of thirty days, he shall be deemed to
contrary to the RTI Act?
have refused the request
Total Score ( Out of 20) 12.5
Disclosures
Criteria(See Annexure 3 for Rating
S.No Comments ( If rating is less than 2)
the CTI rating system) (out of 2)
The link to information on the
organisation, functions and duties of the
the particulars of its high court and directs us to the History
organisation, functions and page which has no relevant or details on
1 duties and the powers and 1 it. The link however provides information
duties of its officers and on powers and duties of its employees
employees;; and different departments under the
administration of the high court.
the rules, regulations,

instructions, manuals and
records, held by it or under
2 2 Lists e-copies of all acts and rules.
its control or used by its
employees for discharging
its functions;
a statement of the
Only generic names are mentioned of
categories of documents
3 0.5 records with no ecopy or details like
that are held by it or under
judicial records, service records etc.
its control;
35
a directory of its officers and

4 2 Detailed information cadre wise
employees;
the monthly remuneration

received by each of its
officers and employees, A pay scale copy is available which has no
5 0.5
including the system of year mentioned on it.
compensation as provided
in its regulations;
the budget allocated to each

of its agency, indicating the
particulars of all plans,
6 0 2014 budget is the last updated one.
proposed expenditures and
reports on disbursements
made;
the particulars of facilities

available to citizens for
obtaining information,
including the working hours Only information of PIOs available. No
7 of a library or reading room, 1 information about facilities available for
if maintained for public citizens.
use;the names, designations
and other particulars of the
Public Information Officers;
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. 2 Yes, available in required format.
No information on applications
9 Publishes RTI Statistics 0
received/dismissed.
Publishes statistics on
Cases only on opening basis no data on
10 Case Pendency 1
dismissal.
and Dismissal
Total Score ( Out of 20) 10
36
Decisions
Decision Critique(If score is less

S.No Comment Score
Name than 2)
UP Cooperative Societies Act
which added corporative
The decision restricted the
societies within the purview of
scope of RTI Act and gave an
Mecon v. RTI Act unconstitutional. It
implication that co-operative
1 State was held that whether 0.5/2
societies could never come
of UP Petitioner is Public Authority
under the same.
or not is to be decided by
State Information
Commission..
Another board-Central
Board of Secondary
Education was held as a
A.Pavitra v. Held-ISCE Board not public
2 public authority by the 0/2
UOI authority under RTI Act
Supreme Court of
India.
Writ Petition to supply a

3 PSC v. SIC photocopy of paper of PCS 2/2
under RTI allowed
Allowed petition filed.

Arti Devi v. IOC-LPG-
4 CIC & Distribution. RTI for 2/2
Ors documents submitted by rival
competitor.
Held- RTI to trace action taken

SC Information about action
in application filed u/s. 178 (8)
5 Vishwakar taken would not impede the 0.5/2
of Cr. P.C exempted u/s. 8 (1)
ma v CIC process of investigation.
(h) RTI Act.
37
Held- the Committee of

Management of an
Educational
Surendra
Institution or its members can
6 Singh v. 2/2
be required to give
State of UP
information
on an application made under
the RTI Act.
Held-even an iota
of nexus of control
Dhara Singh
and finance of public
GHS
7 authority over the 2/2
v. State of
activity of a private
UP
Body it would fall u/s
2(h) of the Act.
Held-information
disclosing the names
& address of who
have received more
than Rs. 1 lac from
the CM Discretionary
Fund, can be given to
PIO CMO v. it is not exempted u/s.
8 SIC 8(j) of RTI Act. 2/2
Total Score (Out of 20) 13
Practice
Application Accepted/Reje
No. RTI Query cted Comments Score
Please furnish a category wise

list of the number of cases
which were filed, number of
cases disposed off, and number Information sent in the
1 Accepted 2
of cases pending in the High correct format
Court in the year 2016. Please
furnish a category wise list of
the number of cases the Lok
38
Adalat of the High court has

heard and the number of cases
the Lok Adalat of the High court
has settled in the year 2016.
Rejected on the grounds

Please send the latest copy of
2 Rejected that information sought 0
the High Court Rules
is not clear
Please tell me the number of

working and non-working days Information sent in the
3 Accepted 2
in the High Court in the years correct format
2015 and in the year 2016
What is the procedure to obtain

Application rejected as
4 a copy of a judgement by x Rejected 0
being unsigned
District court given in 1990?
Please furnish the number of

Right to Information
applications have been filed in
the high court in the year 2016.
Please specify the number such
applications which have been Information sent in the
5 Accepted 2
rejected due to reasons correct format
prescribed in Section 8 and
Section 9 of the Right to
Information Act and those that
have been rejected for any
other reason.
Has a sexual harassment

committee been formed under Information sent in the
6 Accepted 2
the new act? Who are the correct format
members of the committee?
How many male and female

public toilets does the court
building have? How many Not
7 urinals and how many W.C.'s responded by 0
are there in these toilets? Does cut-off date
the court premises have a
disability friendly toilet?
8 Please provide a certified copy Rejected Certified copy to 0
39
of the order passed on x/x/xxx obtained through RTI

in W.P. x/ x rules
What is the procedure followed

by the High Court for
designating advocates as Senior
Not
Advocates? Please provide the
9 responded by 0
list of advocates who are being
cut-off date
considered for designation as
senior advocates in the high
court?
Please provide a list of all Rejected as not being

10 judges in the high court/district Rejected information under 0
court along with their assets. Section 2(f)
Responsiveness
Applicatio Date application was Date Reply was sent Total days taken to
n No. received by PIO by PIO send reply Score
1 03/25/2017 25/03/2017 30 1.5
2 18/01/2017 4/02/2017 16 2
3 04/01/2017 13/02/2017 32 1
4 14/01/2017 - 0
5 03/01/2017 15/02/2017 42 0.5
6 10/01/2017 13/02/2017 32 1
7 10/01/2017 - 0
8 11/01/2017 04/02/2017 23 1.5
40
9 14/01/2017 - 0
10 08/01/2017 13/02/17 37 1
Total Score( Out of 20) 8.5
41
Chennai High Court

____________________________

Tamil Nadu
Chennai Madurai 56 and 1294 23.11
Pondicherry
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 16 6/9
Disclosures 10 2/9
Decisions 12 7/9
Practice 5.5 9/9
Speed 10 8/9
Total 54 8/9
Rules

The RTI Rules of the Chennai High Court can be found
here. (http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/rtia.pdf) . They
Does the High Court
1 2 have been amended several times
have RTI Rules ?
( http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/rti-amend-2015.pdf)
and (http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/rti-amendment.pdf)
42
Does the High Court

10.

The rules lay down that the fees should be paid to PIO,
the fees, payment
3 2 High Court, Madras/treasury challan by cash, demand
method, Name of the
draft or postal order
beneficiary ?
The High Court accepts payments through cash,

Do the rules allow all
4 1.5 demand draft and postal order. But it does not allow the
payment methods ?
electronic payment method.

5 1.5
post?

other exception other Copies of order/decree/judgement/documents on the
6 1.5
than the ones in the RTI judicial side will not be issued under RTI
Act?
Do the rules contain a Copies of order/decree/judgement on the judicial side

form, which stipulates shall be issued only under the procedure followed by
7 1.5
procedures other than Madras High Court
the ones in the RTI act.

payment of fees.
For the application requiring the copy of the

records(except order,decree,judgement/documents on
9 response per page fees 0
the judicial side) shall accompany a sum of Rs.100 along
of Rs. 2 or less
with the application fee.

10 other provision 2 There is no other provision contrary the parent act
43
Disclosures
No details of organisation, functions and
duties except administration of justice
the particulars of its
and related terms.
organisation, functions and
1 duties and the powers and 1
Powers and duties of registrars and
duties of its officers and
employees attached to them are in the
employees;;
Annexure.

records, held by it or under Only names of the Acts and rules no
2 1
its control or used by its ecopy.
its functions;
a statement of the
categories of documents Only names mentioned i.e. case records
3 0.5
that are held by it or under and service records.
its control;
a directory of its officers and Official extensions available without names

4 1
employees; of employees.

officers and employees,
5 0.5 Pay scale of unknown year available.
including the system of
in its regulations;
44

6 2 2016-17 budget available.
made;

including the working hours
7 of a library or reading room, 2 Available.
if maintained for public
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. 2 Available.
9 Publishes RTI Statistics 0 No
10 Case Pendency 0 No
and Dismissal
Decisions

S.No Comment Score
Name than 2)
45
The Notings, Jottings,

Administrative Letters,
Registrar
Internal Deliberations and
General The court misinterprets
Intricate Internal Discussions
v. R.M. plain text of 2(j) in order to
1 on the 0/2
Subrama exclude itself.
administrative side of the
nian &
High Court cannot be brought
Registrar
under Section 2(j) of the Right
to Information Act, 2005
Bank issued notice,

threatening to recover loan by
enforcing security and
bringing it to sale by
publishing details of
properties as well as
photographs of borrower in
Newspapers. Petition was
K.G.Doraisam filed for seeking Writ of
y v. Mandamus for directing bank .
2 2/2
Asst. General to forbear from publishing
Manager photographs for being
violative of Article 21 - Held,
individual right to privacy is
not absolute and also under
certain circumstances, duty to
maintain secrecy superseded
by larger public interest as
well as by the Banks own
interest.
appellant has asked for details

relating to the number of
subordinate
Registrar
Judges,employees, complaints
General
of bribe and so
Madras HC v.
3 on in the subordinate 1.5/2
K.
judiciary and not anything
Elango & The
which could be termed as
Registrar, TIC
Judicial proceedings or part of
the Judicial process.Allowed
the appeal by directing the
46
public authority to furnish the

details within 15 days
RTI (Information) for supply of

copies of all Diary notings &
hearing records of CMSA No.
10/2007 on the file of this
Court from 1st hearing i.e.,
April 2007 (listed before this
Court) to final hearing
and Judgment during
December 2008. The HC tries to shield itself
Held:- Respondent is entitled from RTI under the aura of
Registrar
to receive copies of Diary independence of judiciary.
General
4 notings, hearing records of There is no reason why the 0/2
v. K.U.
CMSA No. 10 of 2007, copies RTI should not prevail over
Rajashekar
of Grounds of Appeal ,Cross the rules given Section 22.
Objection Common Order
only under the relevant
provisions of the
Rules of High Court, Madras
(Appellate Side), 1965. The SIC
orderer directing
PIO to give information
sought free of cost is against
independence of judiciary.
The order passed by the TIC,

Chennai,is set aside by this
Against Section 22 of the RTI
Court.When there is
Act. It is interesting that
Registrar a self-contained and inbuilt
when these information
General procedure evolved by High
sought could be disclosed
5 v. A. Kanagaraj Court in regard to the 0/2
under provisions of some
& litigants obtaining certified
other statute it is denied just
Registrar,TIC copies of orders pertaining to
because it was sought by
judicial proceedings as per
means of an RTI Application.
Rules of High Court, Appellate
Side, 1965.
47
Information sought for by

Applicant was with regard to
action taken on his complaint
against Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate.Queries (ii) and (iii)
relate to the selection and
appointment of Registrar Administrative efficiency is
The PIO General of High Court. not a ground for rejection
6 0/2
Vs. The CIC Held-respondent has under the RTI act.
deprecated the practice of the
second respondent herein in
overloading the Registry of
this Court by making several
queries or complaints one
after another and following
the same under the RTI Act.
the information sought was

w.r.t FIR as well as the
judgment in Criminal Appeal
No. 699 of 2005. The
petitioner wanted to have
Photostat copies of all the
documents relating to these
The two references from his office,
Superintende including the office noting
nt, found in the file. Held-since
Office of the there is a statutory bar
7 Incorrect reading of 8(2). 1/2
Public against the counsel disclosing
Prosecutor such an information, which
Vs. The will result in civil
Registrar, TIC consequences for the counsel,
Section 8(2) cannot be read in
isolation so as to jettison the
obligation on an Advocate
from disclosing
the information, which are
privileged and
barred by Statutes.
48
When funds provided by

appropriate Government was
regulated and controlled
by Authority constituted for
Karanthai
specific purpose with
Tamil Sangam
concurrence of appropriate
Vs. R.
8 Government, Non
Sivaprakasha
Governmental Organisation
m
which received allocation or
and Anr.
provision of fund had to be
treated as public authority
under the Act and
State Law 2/2
The contesting second

respondents had sought for
certain information from the
petitioner TNPSC. When the
same was not forthcoming,
they approached the
Information Commissioner
and the
TNPSC v.
9 Commission, after notice to
TNSIC
the TNPSC, granted directions
to the TNPSC to divulge
information sought for by the
contesting respondents.
Held-information sought
not exempted u/s. 8
(1)(j).Petition
dismissed. 2/2
information relating to
pensioner, a retired time-scale
Sub-Post Master, who was
drawing his pension.Held-
M.Kaliaperum
the whereabouts of a
10 al
pensioner is also very much
v. CIC & Anr
relevant and it cannot be a
private information. The
authorities are bound
to help in execution of Court 1.5/2
49
orders.
Practice

cases disposed off, and number
of cases pending in the High
the Lok Adalat of the High court Information sent in the
1 has settled in the year 2016. Accepted correct format 2

Please send the latest copy of that the contents of the
2 the High Court Rules Rejected query is not specific 0

working and non-working days Not
3
in the High Court in the years responded by
2015 and in the year 2016 cut-off date 0

4 a copy of a judgement by x Information sent in the
District court given in 1990? Accepted correct format 2
Please furnish the number of Information sent, but did

5 Right to Information not include number or
applications have been filed in Accepted break-up of rejections. 0.5
50

applications which have been
rejected due to reasons
other reason.

committee been formed under Not
6
the new act? Who are the responded by
members of the committee? cut-off date 0

building have? How many
7 urinals and how many W.C.'s
are there in these toilets? Does Not
the court premises have a responded by
disability friendly toilet? cut-off date 0
Please provide a certified copy Certified copy to

8 of the order passed on x/x/xxx obtained through RTI
in W.P. x/ x Rejected rules 0

9
list of advocates who are being Procedure given.The list
considered for designation as of senior advocates not
senior advocates in the high furnished as it contains
court? Accepted personal information. 1
Please provide a list of all

10 judges in the high court/district Rejected as being
court along with their assets. Rejected personal information. 0
Total Score (Out of 20) 5.5
Responsiveness
51
1 30/12/2016 14/03/2017 74 0.5
2 18/01/2017 03/01/2017 15 2
3 16/02/2107 0
4 03/03/17 06/04/17 33 1
5 30/12/2016 02/02/2017 32 1
6 06/01/2017 0
7 06/01/2017 0
8 06/01/2017 24/01/2017 18 2
9 16/02/2017 16/03/2017 30 1.5
10 09/01/2017 27/01/2017 18 2
Total Score( Out of 20) 10
52
Delhi High Court

____________________________

Delhi - 38 Delhi 1053 27.71
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 17 5/9
Disclosures 12.5 1/9
Decisions 11 8/9
Practice 9 7/9
Speed 14 7/9
Total 64 4/9
Rules

The RTI Rules of the Delhi High Court can be found
Does the High Court
1 2 (http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/RTIRu
have RTI Rules ?
les/RTIFile_HJT71GNX.PDF)
53
Does the High Court

10.
Do the rules clearly list The rules lay down that the fees should be paid to
the fees, payment Public Information officer or Assistant Public
3 2
method, Name of the Information officer designated by the Chief Justice of
beneficiary ? the court through Cash, Demand draft and pay order
The High Court accepts payments through Cash,

Do the rules allow all Demand drafts and pay orders but excludes Indian
4 1
payment methods ? Postal Orders and electronic methods which are the
most convenient and accessible mode of payments.

application to be made The court allows the application to be made through
5 2
electronically and by post or electronically
post?
I. Such information which relates to judicial functions

and duties of the Court and matters incidental and
ancillary thereto
2. Information which has been expressly forbidden to be
published by the Court or the disclosure whereof may
constitute Contempt of Court; or information which
includes commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would
harm the competitive position of a third party, unless
the competent authority is satisfied that larger public
Do the rules contain no interest warrants the disclosure of such information; or
other exception other information which would impede the process of
6 0.5
than the ones in the RTI investigation or apprehension of prosecution of
Act? offenders; or information which relates to any public
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the
Central Public Information Officer or the State
Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the
case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information.
3.Any information affecting the confidentiality of any
examination conducted by Delhi High Court including
Delhi Judicial Service and Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
The question of confidentiality shall be decided by the
54
Competent Authority whose decision shall be final
Do the rules contain a

form, which stipulates
7 1.5 Separate application needs to be made for the
procedures other than
information sought.

payment of fees.

9 response per page fees 2 Rs.2 is being charged for each page
of Rs. 2 or less

10 other provision 2 There is no rule contrary to the parent act.
Disclosures
organisation, functions and No information on powers states still under
1 duties and the powers and 0.5 consideration and organisation and
duties of its officers and functions namesake information like
employees;; dispensation of justice.
55

records, held by it or under Detailed rules and acts attached in a
2 2
its control or used by its document.
its functions;
a statement of the
categories of documents Namesake disclosure regarding general
3 0.5
that are held by it or under records.
its control;

4 2 Available
employees;

5 0.5 Pay scale of 2006 available.
in its regulations;

particulars of all plans, 2015-16 budget and expenditure available.
6 2
made;

PIO details not available only the designated
7 of a library or reading room, 1
authority
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. 1 Amendments not published under RTI tab.
56
9 Publishes RTI Statistics 2 Available.
Pendency available but no dismissal
10 Case Pendency 1
information.
and Dismissal
Decisions

S.No Comment Score
Name than 2)
RTI-Assets of SC Judges
Held-If declaration of assets
by a subordinate judicial
officer is seen as essential to
Secretary
enforce
1 General, SCI 2/2
accountability at that level,
Vs. SC Agarwal
then the need for such
declaration by Judges of the
constitutional courts is even
greater.
Present appeal filed for

quashing of order of CIC and
order of Single Judge whereby
Single Judge dismissed
UPSC Vs. petition of appellant affirmed
.
2 Shiv Shambhu order of CIC who allowed 2/2
& Ors. appeal filed
by respondents under Section
19(3) of Act for information in
regard to screening. Appeal
dismissed
57
Office of AG is a
constitutional body. It is
UOI v. Held-office of AGI does not fall
covered by the RTI act,
3 S C Aggarwal within the description of 0/2
though information under it
and Ors. "public authority".
might be protected under
Section 8.
Whether rule of Respondent

No. 1 University of not
allowing students to take
Master Rajat
away question paper from
Mann
examination hall
Vs Guru .A better relief than a
was valid and
4 Gobind Singh direction to review could be 1/2
legal?Respondent University
Indraprastha
directed to review its policy
University&
qua question papers, answer
Ors.
key and OMR answer
sheets of the student
concerned,
Details with regard to a

pending case before the SC is
sought--Information was not
provided on the ground that it
was not available in that
form--CIC in appeal directed
the CPIO to provide the
information within 15 days if
available centrally and if the
Registrar, SCI information sought was
Vs. centrally not Against Section 7(9) of the
5 0.5/2
Lokesh K. available to bring it to the RTI Act..
Batra and Ors. notice of the competent
authority--Single Judge
held that the order of CIC
requires the information
regarding the period for
which the judgments are
pending after being reserved
to be placed in public
domain cannot be
sustained--Held, Requirement
58
of the provision is only to

maintain the records in a
manner which facilitates the
right to information
under the Act--Held, direction
cannot be issued to the public
authority to collate the
information in the manner in
which it is sought by the
applicant
Held, applications of the

Petitioner shall be
considered by the Registrar of
Cooperative
Eliamma Societies, to the extent the
Sebastian information is available with
Vs. Ministry of his office--Where information
6 1/2
Home not available, the RCS shall
Affairs and indicate clearly
Ors. what material does not
exist--It is then open
to the Petitioner to seek such
information under
Section 139 of the DCS Act.
the "public interest" argument

of the Petitioner is premised
on the plea that his wife is a
public servant; he is in
litigation with her, and
requires information, - in the
course of a private dispute - to
Vijay Prakash
establish the truth of his
7 Vs.UOI and 1/2
allegations. The CIC has held
Ors.
that there is no public interest
element in the disclosure
of such personal information.
HC concurred with CIC and
held basic protection
afforded by virtue of the
exemption (from disclosure)
59
enacted under Section 8(1)(j)

cannot be lifted or disturbed.
Whether Direction to PIO to

provide
inspection of records(Income
Naresh
Tax) was
Trehan
maintainable? Held-It was
8 Vs.Rakesh
apparent that disclosure of
Kumar
information as directed had
Gupta
no discernable
element of larger public
interest. 1/2
Held-Disclosure of
information sought
by Petitioner could hardly
endanger life
UOI Vs. or physical safety of any
9
R.S. Khan person - There must be some
basis to invoke provisions of
Section 8(1)(g) of Act - It
could not be a mere
apprehension 2/2
Information sought with

regard to Annual
Confidential Reports of third
party. Held -Reasons provided
UOI by the respondent are
10
Vs. D.S. Meena not convincing enough to
establish that disclosure of
ACR details and the DPC
proceedings is important for
larger public interest. 1/2
Practice
60


that The information
Please send the latest copy of which has been sought
2 the High Court Rules Rejected was vague and wide 0

working and non-working days
3
in the High Court in the years Information sent in the
2015 and in the year 2016 Accepted correct format 2


5
have been rejected for any Directed to the court
other reason. Accepted website for information 1
61

committee been formed under
6
the new act? Who are the Information sent in the
members of the committee? Accepted correct format 2

are there in these toilets? Does Not
the court premises have a responded by
disability friendly toilet? cut-off date 0
Please provide a certified copy Not

8 of the order passed on x/x/xxx responded by
in W.P. x/ x cut-off date 0

9
considered for designation as Not
senior advocates in the high responded by
court? cut-off date 0

10 judges in the high court/district
court along with their assets. Rejected Rejected. 0
Responsiveness
1 27/02/2017 03/03/2017 6 2
2 27/02/2017 04/3/2017 8 2
62
3 21/3/2017 31/3/17 10 2
4 16/02/2017 17/02/2017 1 2
5 27/02/2017 03/03/2017 6 2
6 10/03/2017 1/4/2017 20 2
7 10/03/2017 0
8 10/03/2017 0
9 16/02/2017 0
10 21/03/2017 29/03/2017 8 2
63
Himachal Pradesh High Court

____________________________

Himachal
Shimla - 9 264 29.33
Pradesh
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 19 2/9
Disclosures 5 8/9
Decisions 15 2/9
Practice 13 1/9
Speed 17 4/9
Total 69 2/9
Rules

The RTI Rules of the Himachal Pradeshi High Court can
Does the High Court be found
1 2
have RTI Rules ? (http://hphighcourt.nic.in/pdf/RTIRule201312082013.pdf
). The act has been ammended once which can be
64
found(http://hphighcourt.nic.in/pdf/RTIRule2013130720
15.pdf)
Does the High Court

10.

The rules lay down that the fees should be paid to State
the fees, payment
3 2 Public Information Officer at high court level through
method, Name of the
bank draft,postal order and treasury challan
beneficiary ?

4 1.5 Demand drafts and Indian postal order but excludes
payment methods ?
electronic mode of payment.

application to be made
5 2 All methods of application are accepted
electronically and by
post?

other exception other
6 2 No other exceptions
than the ones in the RTI
Act?
Do the rules contain a A separate application shall be made in respect of each

form, which stipulates subject and in respect of each year to which the
7 1.5
procedures other than information relates

payment of fees.

9 response per page fees 2 Rs. 2 per page is being charged
of Rs. 2 or less

10 other provision 2 No other rules contrary to the parent act
65
Disclosures
1 duties and the powers and 0 No RTI declaration tab on website.
employees;;

2 0 No RTI declaration tab on website.
its functions;
a statement of the
its control;

4 1 Yes, but not as section 4 declaration.
employees;

in its regulations;

made;
66

7 of a library or reading room, 0 No RTI declaration tab on website.
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. 2 Available
10 Case Pendency 2 Pendency and disposal monthly
and Dismissal
Decisions
S.No Comment Score
Name than 2)
whether names of the
Reporting, First and Second
Review/Accepting
Authority, authors of the
1 SBI v. CIC 2/2
Annual Confidential Reports
of respondent Santosh Kumar
can be disclosed to him
under RTI Act or not?
Shekhar Held-Information wrt

.
2 Srivastava v. Dhaulasidh Hydro- 2/2
SIC electric Project to be
67
disclosed. Imposed cost for

malafidely denying
information
Office of AG is a
Whether interview sheets
constitutional body. It is
disclosing the name of Expert
covered by the RTI act,
3 HPPSC v. SIC member of the panel can be 1/2
though information under it
disclosed to applicant
might be protected under
or exempted u/s.8(1)(g)? No
Section 8.
.A better relief than a

SIC v. PIO cum Petition for information
4 direction to review could be 2/2
BDO allowed with penalty..
Practice

Please send the latest copy of Information sent in the

2 the High Court Rules Accepted correct format 2

3
in the High Court in the years Only Calender sent,
2015 and in the year 2016 Accepted without breakup 1
68

4 a copy of a judgement by x Information in the
District court given in 1990? Accepted public domain 1

5
Information Act and those that Only RTI statistics of last
have been rejected for any year sent. No breakup of
other reason. Accepted reasons for rejection. 1

6

are there in these toilets? Does
the court premises have a Information sent in the
disability friendly toilet? Accepted correct format 2
Please provide a certified copy

8 of the order passed on x/x/xxx Copy of order was sent.
in W.P. x/ x Accepted No certified copy. 1

9
senior advocates in the high Information in the
court? Accepted public domain 1
Please provide a list of all Application rejected as

10
judges in the high court/district Rejected third party information 0
69
court along with their assets.
Responsiveness
1 28/02/2017 28/03/2017 30 1.5
2 27/02/2017 21/3/2017 24 1.5
3 22/03/2017 18/04/2017 26 1.5
4 25/02/2017 25/03/2017 30 1.5
5 28/02/2017 28/03/2017 30 1.5
6 14/03/2017 30/03/2017 16 2
7 14/03/2017 30/03/2017 16 2
8 14/03/2017 30/03/2017 16 2
9 25/02/2017 25/03/2017 30 1.5
10 22/03/2017 18/04/2017 26 1.5
70
Karnataka High Court

____________________________

Dharwad,
Bangalore 29 Karnataka 591 20.38
Gulbarga
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 18.5 3/9
Disclosures 5.5 7/9
Decisions 3 9/9
Practice 13 1/9
Speed 17 3/9
Total 57 7/9
Rules

Does the High Court The RTI Rules of the Karnataka High Court can be found
1 2
have RTI Rules ? (http://hck.gov.in/rti2005.asp).
Does the High Court

10
71

The rules lay down that the fees should be paid to
the fees, payment
3 2 Registrar General through cash, postal order or
method, Name of the
demand draft
beneficiary ?

4 1.5 Demand drafts and Indian postal order but excludes
payment methods ?
electronic mode of payment

5 1.5
post?

6 2 No other specific exceptions mentioned in the act.
Act?

7 2
procedures other than No procedures other than the parent act is mentioned.

payment of fees.

9 response per page fees 1.5 Rs. 3 is being charged per page.
of Rs. 2 or less

10 other provision 2 No provision contrary to the parent act.
72
Disclosures
No details only one line information, powers
1 duties and the powers and 0.5
also no vital information.
employees;;

2 1 Only name of Acts no ecopy of the same.
its functions;
a statement of the
Mentions case files and list of registers
3 1 on website but not under RTI disclosure
table.
its control;
a directory of its officers and Available with High Court establishment,

4 0
employees; no e-copy.

officers and employees, Available in register of accounts branch no
5 0
including the system of ecopy
in its regulations;

6 0 No ecopy it is under non-plan scheme
made;
73

No information about facilities, PIO
7 of a library or reading room, 1
information only
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. 2 Available
10 Case Pendency 0 No information
and Dismissal
Decisions

S.No Comment Score
Name than 2)
If a person is working in a
public authority, their
HE R 3 had no right under the Act
financial information is
Rajashekhara to seek personal information
1 relevant and the release of 0/2
ppa of the petitioner.
such information may serve
v. SPIO (assets and liabilities)
public purpose.
Karnataka HC R2 submitted an RTI If a person is working in a

2 0/2
v. application seeking public authority, their
74
Karnataka SIC information wrt Mr. service. information is

Muniyappa working as relevant and the release of
Jamedar in the such information may serve
High Court of Karnataka . public purpose.
Rejected for
information being personal in
nature. Complaint filed before
SIC which directed
to provide a copy of service
register within 30 days. Held
Commission acted
in excess of jurisdiction.
Respondents 2 to 7 made
applications seeking
furnishing of copies of their
respective answer books(Asst.
Selection Public Prosecutor) and related
Committee information.
3 of APP v. Rejected. Complaint to SIC 1/2
Karnataka which directed the petitioner
SIC. to provide the information
sought for within 30 days.
WP against the same allowed.
Held appeal
was the appropriate remedy.
Whether as against the order

Basawanappa
passed by the SIC
4 v. 1/2
Appeal lies under Section
SIC
19(1) of the RTI Act ?
The appellants were

unsuccessful in the written
examination conducted for
Similar answer sheets of
the purpose of recruitment of
other competitive exams
5 Civil Judges. they sought for 0/2
have been released under
their answer scripts to be
RTI
Shivu v. furnished to them and
Karnataka for re-valuation of their
HC scripts. Appeal dismissed
75
(i) Whether a single

application filed seeking
information and certified
copies of the Asset and
Liability statements submitted
by all the sitting MLAs, MLCs
of the State, to the Karnataka
Lokayukta, is tenable in view
of Rule 14 of the The RTI Act does not restrict
Karnataka Right to the amount of information
6 Information Rules, 2005? that can be asked. The PIO 0/2
Held-No could always direct the
(ii) Whether the Information payment of a per page fees.
Commission has the power
under S. 19 of the
Act to direct the access to the
Registrar, relevant records and provide
Office of the the information
Karnataka of the public authority, as may
Lokayukta v. be identified by a
Karntaka SIC complainant?-Held No
Practice

heard and the number of cases Information sent in the
1 the Lok Adalat of the High court Accepted correct format 2
76
Please send the latest copy of Directed to Court

2 the High Court Rules Accepted website 1

3


5
have been rejected for any Information sent in the
other reason. Accepted correct format 2

6

Rejected on the ground

Please provide a certified copy that order could be
8
of the order passed on x/x/xxx obtained through HC
in W.P. x/ x Rejected rules. 2
77

9
considered for designation as Incorrect
senior advocates in the high information-the
court? Accepted advocates act-sent 0

10 judges in the high court/district
court along with their assets. Rejected Application rejected. 0
Responsiveness
1 30/12/2016 16/01/2017 16 2
2 13/01/2017 27/1/2017 14 2
3 10/1/17 18/1/2017 8 2
4 17/02/2017 10/03/2017 23 1.5
5 30/12/2016 01/02/2017 31 1
6 07/01/2017 25/01/2017 18 2
7 07/01/2017 2/2/2017 25 1.5
8 06/01/2017 09/01/2017 4 2
9 17/02/17 06/03/17 19 2
10 10/01/2017 16/02/2017 36 1
78
Kerala High Court

____________________________

Kerala and
Cochin - 36 601 16.69
Lakshadweep
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 16 6/9
Disclosures 9.5 5/9
Decisions 13 4/9
Practice 10.5 4/9
Speed 14.5 6/9
Total 64 6/9
Rules

The Rules of the Kerala High Court can be found here
Does the High Court (http://www.highcourtofkerala.nic.in/RTI/KHC_RTI_Rules.
1 have RTI Rules ? 2 pdf)
79
Does the High Court

specify a fees of Rs. 10 The High Court prescribes an RTI application fees of
2 or less except postage? 2 Rs.10.

the fees, payment The rules lay down that the fees should be paid to
method, Name of the Public Information Officer designated by the High
3 beneficiary ? 1.5 Court. But the payment methods are not mentioned.

4 payment methods ? 0 Payment methods are not mentioned

electronically and by The rules allow the application to be made by post, but
5 post? 1.5 no electronically.

than the ones in the RTI No application for information or document relating to a
6 Act? 1.5 policy matter under consideration shall be entertained.

procedures other than The applicant is asked to specify if she/he is party to the
7 the ones in the RTI act. 1.5 litigation if information sought is in respect of a case.

appeal without
8 payment of fees. 2 Yes. The rules do not prescribe any fees for Appeals.

response per page fees
9 of Rs. 2 or less 2 Rs. 2 is being charged for each page.

other provision
10 contrary to the RTI Act? 2 No provision contrary to the parent act
80
Disclosures
S.No the CTI rating system) (out of 2) Comments ( If rating is less than 2)
organisation, functions and 2
duties and the powers and
1 employees;; Detailed court manual available.
the rules, regulations, 1
2 its functions; Only names of Acts available.
a statement of the 0.5

3 its control; Only case related general declaration.
2
4 employees; Yes available.
the monthly remuneration 0
officers and employees, Cannot disclose due to large number of
employees and monthly changes are huge,,
states that a pay scale is disclosed in
compensation as provided annexure, but no annexure found in the
5 in its regulations; document
the budget allocated to each 0
6 made; Not available.
81
the particulars of facilities 2

of a library or reading room,
7 Public Information Officers; Available.
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. Yes.
9 Publishes RTI Statistics No
0
Case Pendency Last available annual report is of 2014-15
10 and Dismissal which has 2014 budget and case pendency
Total Score ( Out of 2 9.5
Decisions

S.No Name Comment than 2) Score
Whether, a particular Society
is a
"public authority" would
depend on
the question as to,whether
Thalapalam the
Service Society is substantially
Co-operative financed
Bank v. directly or indirectly by the
1 UOI & Ors State 1.5/2
82
Government and hence there

cannot be a general
declaration that Societies are
"Public authorities" for the
purpose
of the Right to Information
Act.
do the co-operative societies

fall within the jurisdictional
limits
of the RTI Act directly or
indirectly that is, at least,
through the process
of an official gathering
Thrissur Dist information
Cooperative and then providing it to the
2 Bank v. SIC applicants? 1.5/2
Except for protecting the

identity of the examiner,
which is severable under
Section 10, the Public
Authority cannot refuse to
Treesa IRish give
v. copy of the valued answer
3 CPIO sheet to the candidate. 2/2
the Hindu public religious

institutions and endowments
to which the HR & CE Act
AC applies are not public
Bhanunni v. authorities as defined Misinterpretation of the
Commission in the RTI Act and the scope of public authority.
er & provisions of that Act do not Public religious institutions
4 Ors. apply to those institutions. have to be transparent. 0/2
When the Act does not

exempt voluminous
information from disclosure,
Canara Bank the Petitioner
v. cannot deny such information
5 CIC & Anr on that ground. 2/2
83
Practice

The information sought

cannot be classified as
Please send the latest copy of information under
2 the High Court Rules Rejected section 2(f) 0

3

Please furnish the number of Only number of

Right to Information applications sent. No
5
applications have been filed in number of rejections or
the high court in the year 2016. Accepted their break-up. 0.5
84

other reason.

6

Please provide a certified copy Certified copy can only

8 of the order passed on x/x/xxx be obtained through
in W.P. x/ x Rejected High Court rules 0

9
senior advocates in the high Incorrect information
court? Accepted sent 0
Directed to HC website
Please provide a list of all for information. District
10
judges in the high court/district judge assets not
court along with their assets. Accepted available. 0
85
Responsiveness
Applicatio Date application was Date Reply was Total days taken to send
n No. recived by PIO sent by PIO reply Score
1 02/01/2017 02/02/2017 30 1.5
2 17/01/2017 14/02/2017 27 1.5
3 09/01/2017 07/02/2017 28 1.5
4 17/01/2017 20/01/2017 33 1
5 02/01/2017 02/02/2017 30 1.5
6 05/01/2017 03/02/2017 28 1.5
7 05/01/2017 03/02/2017 28 1.5
8 05/01/2017 03/02/2017 28 1.5
9 17/01/2017 14/02/2017 27 1.5
10 09/0120/17 070/2/2017 28 1.5
86
Kolkata High Court

____________________________

West Bengal a,
Kolkata Port Blair 37 Andaman and Not available -
Nicobar
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 19.5 1/9
Disclosures 4 9/9
Decisions 12.5 6/9
Practice 12.5 3/9
Speed 15.5 5/9
Total 64 4/9
Rules

The Rules of the Kolkatta High Court can be found here.
Does the High Court (http://calcuttahighcourt.nic.in/RTI/RTIACT.pdf) . The act
1 have RTI Rules ? 2 was amended several times which can be found
87
(http://calcuttahighcourt.nic.in/RTI/gaz_not_rti_fees.pdf)
and
(http://calcuttahighcourt.nic.in/RTI/KG17052012_190320
13.pdf)
Does the High Court

specify a fees of Rs. 10 The High Court prescribes an RTI application fees of Rs.
2 or less except postage? 2 10.

method, Name of the Public Information Officer through court fee/demand
3 beneficiary ? 2 draft/bankers check/IPO

4 payment methods ? 1.5 Electronic method of payment is not accepted

5 post? 2 no electronically.

6 Act? 2 No other exceptions are mentioned in the act

procedures other than No restrictions in the format.
7 the ones in the RTI act. 2

appeal without
8 payment of fees. 2 The rules do not prescribe any fees for Appeals.

9 of Rs. 2 or less 2 Rs. 2 is charged for each page
88

other provision No other provisions contrary to the parent act is
10 contrary to the RTI Act? 2 specified in the act.
Disclosures
the particulars of its 0
duties and the powers and
duties of its officers and No RTI declaration tab on website
1 employees;;

2 its functions; No RTI declaration tab on website
a statement of the 0
3 its control; No RTI declaration tab on website
0
4 employees; No RTI declaration tab on website
the monthly remuneration 0
5 in its regulations; No RTI declaration tab on website
89

6 made; No budget information.
7 Public Information Officers; No RTI declaration tab on website
2
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. Yes
9 Publishes RTI Statistics No
2
Case Pendency
10 and Dismissal Yes
Decisions

90
Preetam Upheld the Right of

Rooj v. Examinee to Inspect
University of answer sheet as
1 Calcutta 'Information' 2/2
Whether or not secured

creditor, which had initiated
action for enforcement of its
security interest in terms of
provisions of SARFAESI Act
was entitled to publish
photograph(s)
Ujjal of defaulting borrower(s) in
Kumar&Anr newspapers/magazines etc.
2 v. SBI Held No. 0/2
Held-Respondent council not

under MHRD. It is formed CBSE is already considered
Dinesh under Cooperative Societies to be under RTI by Supreme
Sinha v. Act. Court. The function of the
3 ISCE Not under RTI. society matters. 2/2
petitioner's demand that the

CBI must disclose the identity
of its source of the
information on the basis
whereof it initiated the
criminal case against him Source does not affect
Hossain cannot be allowed due to S. 8 investigation, unless there is
4 Sahed v. UOI (1)(g) of Act danger to the source. 1/2
The reluctance of the CBI

to supply the requisite
information is palpable. The
exemption claimed u/s 8 is
unjustified and has no bearing
on the information
5 CBI v.CIC required. 2/2
91
Practice

Please send the latest copy of

2 the High Court Rules Accepted Directed to the website 1

3


5
prescribed in Section 8 and Requested to know
Section 9 of the Right to whether we wanted
Information Act and those that information from the
have been rejected for any Appellate or the original
other reason. Query side 0
92

6


8 of the order passed on x/x/xxx Information available
in W.P. x/ x Rejected under High Court rules 0

9
considered for designation as Published in the Calcutta
senior advocates in the high Gazette. List can't be
court? Rejected disclosed 1

10 judges in the high court/district High Court Assets in
court along with their assets. Rejected sealed envelope 0.5
Responsiveness
1 30/12/2016 04/02/2017 34 1
2 16/1/2017 27/01/2017 11 2
3 10/01/2017 28/02/17 48 0.5
93
4 16/02/2017 17/02/2017 1 2
5 30/12/2016 12/01/2017 12 2
6 07/01/2012 04/02/2017 27 1.5
7 09/01/2017 24/01/2017 15 2
8 07/01/2017 16/01/2017 9 2
9 17/01/2017 13/02/2017 26 1.5
10 10/01/2017 13/02/2017 33 1
94
Mumbai High Court

____________________________

Maharashtra ,
Aurangabad,
Mumbai 62 Goa, Daman 1488 24
Nagpur, Panaji
and Diu
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 15.5 8/9
Disclosures 10 2/9
Decisions 13 5/9
Practice 10 5/9
Speed 18 2/9
Total 68 3/9
Rules
The Rules of the Bombay High Court can be found here.
Does the High Court (http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/rtirules/bhc_rti_rev_2009
1 have RTI Rules ? 2 _rules.pdf) .
95
Does the High Court


method, Name of the Public Information Officer by cash, demand draft,
3 beneficiary ? 2 bankers cheque and money order
The rules do not allow for the payment through postal

Do the rules allow all order and through electronic mode which are more
4 payment methods ? 1 convenient payment methods.

5 post? 1.5 no electronically.
1.Such information which is not in the public domain.

2.Information related to the judicial functions and duties
of the court and matters incidental and ancillary thereto.
3.Information which has been expressly forbidden to be
published by the court;or information which includes
commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual
property, the disclosure of which would harm the
competitive position of a third position, unless the
competent authority is satisfied that larger public
interest warrants disclosure of such information:
examination conducted by the Bombay High Court
including for the Maharastra Judicial Services and
Maharastra Higher Judicial Service. The question of
confidentiality is decided by the competent authority
whose decision will be final.
6.Information/copy/ies with respect to cases pending in
court, which shall be obtained from the court, as per the
rules and orders in force for the time being
7.Information which is prohibited under sec 24(4) of the
Do the rules contain no act
other exception other 8.Information which is contained in the public material
than the ones in the RTI available to the public or which is available on the web
6 Act? 0 site.
96
. Information regarding the judicial proceedings or

Do the rules contain a records shall be obtained as per the procedure
form, which stipulates prescribed for obtaining certified copies under the rules
procedures other than and orders for the time being in force in that behalf
7 the ones in the RTI act. 1.5

appeal without
8 payment of fees. 1.5 The fee charged for the appeal is Rs.20

9 of Rs. 2 or less 2 Rs. 2 is charged for each page

other provision
10 contrary to the RTI Act? 2 No contrary provisions to the parent act.
Disclosures
1 Details of all departments but power and
the particulars of its duties information is restricted to name
organisation, functions and of Act/rules.Information is very difficult to
duties and the powers and understand due to over loaded unuseful
duties of its officers and disclosure.
1 employees;;

2 its functions; Names of Acts mentioned.
97
0.5 No useful information for most

a statement of the departments mentions types of suits for
categories of documents Judicial department. Information is very
that are held by it or under difficult to understand due to over loaded
3 its control; unuseful disclosure.
0
a directory of its officers and Directory of the Officers and employees
4 employees; are not supplied to the outsiders
the monthly remuneration 0.5

5 in its regulations; Only 2015 payscale disclosed
reports on disbursements On website RTI declaration states, could
6 made; not find any.

7 Public Information Officers; Only PIO information available
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. Available
9 Publishes RTI Statistics Available
98
2
Case Pendency
10 and Dismissal Available
Decisions
Observation-Proposed
detention order and
the Grounds of Detention
Ajay Bajaj v. would be exempted from
State disclosure within
of the meaning of Section Grounds of detention
1 Maharashtra 8(1)(h)of the Act. cannot impede prosecution. 1/2
Whether Petitioner (MLA) can

be allowed to claim
confidentially w.r.t the
medical records maintained
by a
SurupSingh public authority, during the
H period of incarceration.
2 Naik v. State Held-No 1.5/2
The provisions of the

Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act r/w 2(f) of
RTI Act says that everything
which is mentioned in the
definition of information
Jalgaon Dist needs to be supplied by the
Urban cooperative institution to the
Corp Bank v. authority created under the
3 State Cooperative Societies Act. 2/2
99
Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, being "public
Authority" was authorised
to furnish information which
could be accessed by him -
Information that was not in
possession of Registrar was
Sainik called from Petitioner
Co-operative society, which Petitioner
Societyv. refused to furnish.
Bismark Held Petitioner not public
4 Fascho authority u/s. 2(h). Contrary to its own decision. 0/2
Present writ petition filed

against order by which
allowed request for
information made by R.4 and
directed R3 to
give copies of Agreements
of Transport Department with
P, to R4 - Held, disclosure of
both
agreements would not result
Shonk in
Technology disclosure of trade secrets or
5 v. SIC intellectual property 2/2
Kausa
Education Petition partly
6 v. SIC allowed 1/2
the mere fact that the

President and the Governor
are authorities mentioned
in Sub-clauses (iv) of Section
PIO v. 2(e) of the RTI Act, would not
MAnohar exclude them from the
7 PArrikar definition of "public authority 2/2
100
Petitions filed against orders

holding that P obliged to give
information in relation to
affairs
of educational
institutions,which
were managed and controlled
by public charitable trust.The
finding and conclusion that
Appellate the RTI Act is applicable to the
authority & petitioners and they are
chairman obliged to provide
S.P College information in relation to its
Campus v. educational institutions is
8 SIC confirmed. 1.5/2
Nature of documents
(development plans)
involved larger public interest
at hands of Municipal
Corporation and these
Ferani documents could
Hotels v. not be withheld and/or not
9 SIC furnished to 3rd Respondent 2/2
Practice

furnish a category wise list of Information sent but
the number of cases the Lok without category wise
1 Adalat of the High court has Accepted break-up 1
101

Please send the latest copy of Directed to High Court


3
in the High Court in the years Information given in
2015 and in the year 2016 Accepted correct format. 2

4 a copy of a judgement by x
District court given in 1990? Accepted Information too generic 1

5
have been rejected for any Directed to court
other reason. Accepted website 1

6
the new act? Who are the Information given in
members of the committee? Accepted correct format. 2

the court premises have a Information given in
disability friendly toilet? Accepted correct format. 2

8 of the order passed on x/x/xxx Information can be
in W.P. x/ x Rejected obtained under HC rules 0
102

9
senior advocates in the high Rejected as being
court? Rejected unsigned 0

10 judges in the high court/district Rejected as invasion of
court along with their assets. Rejected privacy under 8(1)(j) 0
Responsiveness
1 30/12/2016 16/01/2017 26 1.5
2 13/1/2017 16/01/2017 3 2
3 09/01/2017 30/01/2017 21 2
4 16/01/2017 17/01/2017 31 1.5
5 30/12/2016 11/01/2017 11 2
6 06/01/2017 01/02/2017 24 1.5
7 06/01/2017 12/01/2017 6 2
8 06/01/2017 10/01/2017 4 2
9 17/01/2017 18/01/2017 2 2
10 09/01/2017 13/01/2017 4 2
103
Punjab and Haryana High Court

____________________________

Punjab and
Chandigarh -i 46 2692 57.65
Haryana
Criteria Score Rank
Rules 18.5 3/9
Disclosures 9.5 5/9
Decisions 17 1/9
Practice 10 6/9
Speed 20 1/9
Total 75 1/9
Rules
The Rules of the Punjab and Haryana High Court can be
found here.
Does the High Court (http://www.highcourtchd.gov.in/sub_pages/left_menu/R
1 have RTI Rules ? 2 ules_orders/rti_rules/pdf/rti_highcourt.pdf) .
104
Does the High Court

Do the rules clearly list The rules lay down that the fees should be paid to
the fees, payment Registrar/Public Information Officer, Punjab and
method, Name of the Haryana High Court through court fee stamps/demand
3 beneficiary ? 2 draft/bankers cheque/postal order.

4 payment methods ? 1.5 Electronic method of payment is not accepted

electronically and by The rules allow the application to be made either by
5 post? 2 post or electronically.
1.The Information which relates to judicial functions and

duties of the Court and matters incidental and ancillary
thereto and of confidential nature shall not be disclosed
in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
examination/ selection process conducted by the Punjab
Do the rules contain no and Haryana High Court for any or all categories of
other exception other posts including that for Punjab/Haryana Civil Services
than the ones in the RTI (Judicial Branch) and Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial
6 Act? 1 Services.

procedures other than No procedural restrictions
7 the ones in the RTI act. 2

appeal without
8 payment of fees. 2 . The rules do not prescribe any fees for Appeals.

9 of Rs. 2 or less 2 Rs. 2 per page is charged per page.
105

other provision
10 contrary to the RTI Act? 2 No provisions contrary to the parent act.
Disclosures
the particulars of its 1
Only information on power and duties, no
duties and the powers and information on organisation, functions of
duties of its officers and court says see website.
1 employees;;

2 its functions; Detailed
a statement of the 0
that are held by it or under Says see chapter V, no mention in that
3 its control; document.
2
4 employees; Available.
the monthly remuneration 0.5

5 in its regulations; Pay scale of unknow year available.
106

6 made; 2014 budget available.
7 Public Information Officers; Available
8 Publishes its RTI Rules. Yes
9 Publishes RTI Statistics
0
Case Pendency
10 and Dismissal
Decisions
107
The information sought by the

applicant is in respect of
selection of process
conducted by public authority
to fill a public post. The
conduct of selection of
process and the marks
obtained cannot be said to be
available to a public authority
Vikas as in fiduciary relationship
Sharma v. exempted from disclosure
State of under Section 8(1)(e) of the
1 Haryana Act. 2/2
the information sought by R 2

w.r.t an authorized distributor
of LPG, such as number of
consumers, who use domestic
LPG cylinders with
home-delivery, without home
delivery facilities, for
commercial purpose number
of LPG cylinders received from
HPCL, LPG Plant, Jind,
during the period 1.10.2008 to
31.12.2008 and procedure of
booking system for
domestic cylinders etc. cannot
possibly be termed either to
Hindustan be the information of
Petroleum commercial confidence, trade
Corporation secrets or intellectual
2 v. CIC property 2/2
R5 filed RTI for information

relating to the expenditure,
movable and immovable
Properties of the
Petitioner(District Food and
Supplies Controller,).whether
D.P. Jangra such informations fall within
3 v. SIC the 2/2
108
exemption clause, as
contemplated under Section
8(e)(j)? Held no.
The Hindu Whether Cooperative

Urban Societies, Bank, Sugar Mills,
Cooperative Aided Schools, Clubs
Bank Ltd. Institutions under RTI Act?
4 v.SIC Held Yes 2/2
Held-Information sought was

a matter between two officers
of the Government
departments where a
complaint was made by one
against the other,
which had no public interest
involved, entitling the
petitioner to the grant of
Neeraj Kush information as sought for by
5 v. SIC him. 1/2
whether the petitioner has an

absolute right for the
statements of all the
witnesses recorded while
conducting the preliminary
enquiry and also the
recommendations made by
the then Director, CBI, for
including his name in the FIR
recorded under Section 13 of
the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and for
recommending his
prosecution? Held-No-
M.S.MAlik v. information exempted u/s. 8 Exemption clauses cannot
6 CIC (1)(g) and (h) apply to witness statements 1/2
109
Held-the information that had

been sought by respondent
No. 3 primarily related to the
details of the joining of the
petitioner in the department,
the appointment letter, the
copies of the certificates on
the basis of which he was
appointed etc. The
information sought would
certainly fall within the scope
and ambit
of the expression
"Information" as defined
under Section 2 sub-clause (f)
of the Act.Held provide such
part of the information sought
by respondent No. 3 which
primarily relates to the mode
of appointment and
Vijay Dheer promotion of the petitioner to
7 v. SIC a public post. 2/2
Practice

Adalat of the High court has Information sent in
1 heard and the number of cases Accepted correct format 2
110

The question was vague.

However, Information is
Please send the latest copy of available in the official

3
in the High Court in the years Calendar sent. Breakup
2015 and in the year 2016 Accepted not sent. 1

4 a copy of a judgement by x Generalised information.
District court given in 1990? Accepted Directed to website. 0.5

5
Section 9 of the Right to Only number of
Information Act and those that applications give,
have been rejected for any Rejections or break up
other reason. Accepted not given 0.5

6
the new act? Who are the Information sent in

the court premises have a Information sent in
Please provide a certified copy Information available

8
of the order passed on x/x/xxx Rejected under high court rules 0
111
in W.P. x/ x

9
senior advocates in the high
court? Accepted Directed to Rules. 1

10 judges in the high court/district Assets are exempted
court along with their assets. Rejected from disclosure 0
Responsiveness
1 05/01/2017 19/01/2017 14 2
2 05/01/2017 19/01/2017 14 2
3 13/01/2017 21/01/2017 8 2
4 12/01/2017 13/01/2017 1 2
5 21/02/2017 02/03/2017 13 2
6 05/01/2017 16/01/2017 11 2
7 09/01/2017 13/01/2017 4 2
8 09/01/2017 17/01/2017 8 2
9 09/01/2017 11/01/2017 2 2
10 21/02/2017 02/03/2017 11 2
112
Conclusions
____________________________
Through a practice-based comparative courts whose examples can be highlighted as

analyses of High Courts, our objective in the best practices for others to follow.
RTI project was not only to demonstrate the
lack of transparency in the court, but also to One of the caveats we should mention about
specifically highlight the methods through the project is its short time-line. Since the PIO
which the court subverts requests for and Chief Justice of each High Court has
information. Some of these that we have remained constant throughout this period, it
evidence for include- the imposition of is possible that non-compliance is an
onerous conditions, rejecting applications on individual rather than an institutional problem.
procedural grounds and using vague/generic The CTI of a particular High court may be
terms such as "information already in related to how its Chief Justice and/or PIO
website" to deny information. All of these view the RTI act. This caveat may be easily
methods substantively undermine the rectified by future research, which can
underlying objectives of the RTI . Our hope is compare our results with ones obtained after
that the evidence collected in this project can the change in Chief Justice or PIO. We hope
be used either in existing petitions in the then that the methodological tools used in
courts or to the stakeholders involved in RTI this project, particularly the CTI, can be used
process in order to see some positive reform. by future researchers to record court
The CIC as well as the SIC can also issue transparency over time. We also hope that the
directions to courts to comply with the RTI act. research can be expanded to all the High
In the end however, it is Chief Justices of each Courts that we could not study due to
High Court who must lead the effort to make logistical reasons, and where ,we suspect, the
the courts more accountable and transparent. problem is far worse.
The project also highlighted the The RTI and the High courts project was a part
non-compliance to RTI norms is not universal. of larger focus of the legal system reforms
It varies across high courts and criteria. team on data-driven policy making . We
Punjab and Haryana High Court ,for example,, realised that, in areas that key institutions,
was a clear outlier. The PIO of Punjab and such as higher judiciary and the police, we
Haryana even made an effort to call us to simply lacked the data to suggest
clarify the terms of the application. Our thesis evidence-based legal reform. In this project,
thus is that there are "good/compliant" high thus our aim was not only to benchmark the
113
levels of transparency in each High Court, but decisions of all the social actors whose
through the use of RTI to obtain additional activities have an impact on the public, is
the guarantee that such actors will be
data on the functioning of higher judicial
accountable and will fulfill their mandates.
institutions. We anticipate then that the Accountability targets mismanagement,
substantive content of the replies to our abuse of discretion, bribery, other forms of
corruption and malpractices.85 (emphasis
applications such as Lok Adalat data or data
supplied)
on sexual harassment committees, all of
which we plan to make publicly available, can In this project we found that High courts in
itself be used for further comparative different parts of India, while maintaining the
research of High Courts in India. rhetoric of transparency, often have a poor
record of releasing information under the RTI
After the passage of the RTI Act in 2005, the Act. Most High Courts lack both rule
then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Y.K. compliance as well as practice compliance
Sabharwal stated, with the provisions of the Act. Ten years since
The right to information is necessary to the Chief Justices speech, the judiciary, in its
promote a culture of accountability and
non-compliance, has still not adopted the
to expose corruption and malpractice.
Accessibility of information and release of culture of accountability.
facts pertaining to finance, proceedings and
85
Sabharwal, Y.K, CJ. (2005) Right to Information, Issues of
Administrative Efficiency, Public Accountability and
Constitutional Governance.
114
Resources
____________________________
Draft Proformas for High Courts that the government is considering changes
to the Central RTI rules after 2012.
As part of the RTI project, one of the problems

Several RTI activists had expressed
we faced was the formalisation of the RTI
displeasure at some of the provisions of the
application process by each individual high
draft rules. The government has since clarified
court. Most high courts have specified forms
that it was merely re-enacting existing
for RTI applications in their RTI rules. (The RTI
provisions, and was not really making any
act does not require the application to be in
dramatic changes to the 2012 rules. Others
any particular form) An applicant must follow
have noted the fact that there was no official
these templates or risk rejection on mere
press release for the draft rules and the fact
procedural grounds.
that stakeholders were given only two weeks
to respond.
We have created downloadable soft-copy
proformas based on RTI rules of some high
As part of our project and drawing from our
courts. These include the High courts of
experience with filing RTIs, the LSRP team has
Bombay, Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, Calcutta
also submitted comments on the draft RTI
and Kerala. 86
rules, 2017. You can find a copy of our
comments here.88
We have also created a custom RTI template,
based on consultations with RTI activists, for
Amended Rules of High Courts in Readable
the use in any other high court which does
not have a prescribed form or for use in Soft Copy Forms
making applications to any other public
authority.87
During the project, we noticed that many High
Courts had their rules in the form of unclear
Comments on Draft Rules
scanned pdfs. Further, almost no High Court
provided an amended copy of their rules. The
On April 2017, the Department of Personnel
amendments were part of a separate
and Training had invited comments on the
document and in some cases lost in the
draft RTI Rules, 2017. This was the first time
notifications section of the High Court website.
86
https://thelsr.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/rti-templates-fo 88
r-high-courts-and-other-public-authorities/ https://thelsr.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/comments-on-t
87
Ibid. he-draft-rti-rules-2017/
115
We decided on to begin a subsidiary project to We plan to put all the replies that we have
provide a readable copy of the rules of all received for the more than 100 applications
High Courts with the latest amendments. The sent by us online. The project page can be
89
project page can be found here. We expect found here.92
to complete the project by May 2017.
RTI Videos
Comparative Analyses of RTI rules of High As part of the Crafting Justice Exhibition held
Courts in India in Bangalore on the 29th and 30th of April

2017, we had created two videos related to
RTI. The first one detailed the experience of
As part of the project, we had begun a study
one of our team members in filing RTIs in
to compare the provisions RTI rules of all high
rural Kerala. The second video had a step by
courts. Although most information about the
step instruction on filing an online RTI. Both
sampled High Courts can be found in the
the videos can be found here.93
report, the sheet is meant to compare the
rules of all High Courts in India. The
comparative analyses sheet can be found
here.90 The sheet currently contains the
details of 15 high courts.
Model RTI Rules for High Courts

Based on the comparative study of various RTI
rules, and our experience with the project, we
have drafted model RTI rules, which High
Courts can adopt. The model rules can be
seen here and in Annexure 4 below91
Data from RTI replies
89
https://thelsr.wordpress.com/rti-and-the-high-courts-proj
ect/
90
92
https://thelsr.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/the-rti-rules-of-
different-high-courts-a-comparative-study/ https://thelsr.wordpress.com/rti-and-the-high-courts-proj
91 ect/
93
https://thelsr.wordpress.com/model-rules/ https://www.facebook.com/lsrp.apu/
116
Annexure 1: List of Sample Courts

____________________________
Size of High Reason for

High Court Court Whether Inclusion/Exclusion in
Name of the High Court Location Bench Sampled? Sample
Allahabad High Court Allahabad 82 Yes Largest High Court in India
Chennai High Court Chennai 56 Third largest High Court in

India. One of the three oldest
Yes High Courts in India.
Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur 10 Requires payment through

No court fees.
Delhi High Court New Delhi 38 High court of the National

Yes Capital.
Gauhati High Court Guwahati 17 Requires in-person

No application.
Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad 31 Requires payment of fees in

No court stamps.
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad 27 Rejected applications based

Hyderabad on incorrect name of
beneficiary, even though PIO
No confirmed name.
Himachal Pradesh High Shimla 9 Smallest High Court which

Court does not require in-person
Yes application.
Jammu and Kashmir High Srinagar/Jam 9

Court mu No RTI Act not applicable
Jharkhand High Court Ranchi 13 Requires fees to be paid by

No adhesive court fee stamps
Karnataka High Court Bangalore 29 Closest High Court to the

project. Allowed interaction
Yes with PIO.
Kerala High Court Cochin 36 Yes High Court of the State with
117
the highest HDI.
Kolkata High Court Kolkata 37 One of the three oldest High

Courts in India. Only High
Yes Court sampled from the east.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Jabalpur 38 e-RTI on the website did not
work in spite of several
No attempts.
Manipur High Court Imphal 3 Requires in-person

No application.
Meghalaya High Court Shillong 3 Requires in-person

No application.
Mumbai High Court Mumbai 62 Second largest High Court in

India. One of the three oldest
Yes High Courts in India.
Odisha High Court Cuttack 18 Requires in-person

No application under oath
Patna High Court Patna 30 Requires in-person

No application.
Punjab and Haryana High Chandigarh 46 Fourth largest High Court in

Court Yes India
Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur 33 Requires payment through

No non-judicial stamp
Sikkim High Court Gangtok 2 Requires in-person

No application.
Tripura High Court Agartala 3 Requires in-person

No application.
Uttarakhand High Court Nainital 7 Rejected due to high

No application fees of Rs.100
118
Annexure 2: RTI Questionnaire

____________________________
Type of Probabi
Application
Questio lity of Procedural
Number
Question n answer Reasons for asking adjustment
Please furnish a
category wise list of
the number of cases
which were filed,
number of cases Benchmark question.
disposed off, and Easy to answer since a
number of cases report is made every
pending in the High Administ Very year and data is
Court in the year 2016 rative High available on the net.
1
Please furnish a
category wise list of
the number of cases
the Lok Adalat of the
High court has heard
and the number of Benchmark question.
cases the Lok Adalat of Data easily available.
the High court has Will help in comparing Two questions in
settled in the year Administ disposal/settlement a single
2016. rative High numbers application.
Would be readily Plain paper.

available be the high Handwritten.Writ
Please send the latest court and thus easy to ten in the 2
copy of the High Court Docume send. Will help us regional language
Rules ntary High confirm copy costs. of the court
Please tell me the

number of working
and non-working days
3
in the High Court in
the years 2015 and in Administ
the year 2016 rative High
119
Usually available easily

on the net or HC rules,
but requires the PIO to
What is the procedure apply his/her mind
4
to obtain a copy of a and give his/her
judgement by x opinion rather than
District court given in Administ extract data from Application goes
1990? rative Average existing records. unsigned.
Please furnish the

number of Right to
Information
applications have
been filed in the high
court in the year 2016.
Please specify the
number such
applications which 5
have been rejected
due to reasons
prescribed in Section 8
and Section 9 of the As per the act, all
Right to Information authorities have to
Act and those that make a report. This
have been rejected for Docume merely checks
any other reason. ntary Average statutory compliance
Has a sexual
harassment
committee been
formed under the new Compliance with new 6
act? Who are the SH guidelines.
members of the Institutio Important for other
committee? nal Average research.
120
How many male and

female public toilets
does the court
building have? How
many urinals and how
7
many W.C.'s are there
in these toilets? Does Institutional question.
the court premises Looks at an aspect
have a disability Institutio which is not covered
friendly toilet? nal Average by other questions.
Please provide a
certified copy of the Checks resolution of
8
order passed on conflict of RTI with
x/x/xxx in W.P. x/ x Judicial Low court rules.
What is the procedure

followed by the High
Court for designating
advocates as Senior
Advocates? Please
provide the list of 9
advocates who are Benchmark question
being considered for to check
designation as senior responsiveness rather
advocates in the high Very than content. Unlikely
court? Judicial Low to be answered.
Please provide a list of Benchmark question

all judges in the high to check
court/district court responsiveness rather 10
along with thier Very than content. Unlikely
assets. Judicial Low to be answered.
121
Annexure 3: The Court Transparency Index (CTI) rating system

____________________________
In the CTI, we allocate 20 points to each 5. Do the rules allow an application
Rules, Disclosures, Decisions, Practice and to be made electronically or by
Speed, making a total scale of 100 points. post?
6. Do the rules contain no other
exception other than the ones in
the RTI Act?
7. Do the rules contain a form, which
stipulates procedures other than
8. Do the rules provide for appeal
without payment of fees.
9. Do the rules provide a response
per page fees more than Rs. 2
10. Do the rules contain no other
Rules provision contrary to the RTI Act?
Our Rules category is a measure of how

well a particular High Courts RTI rules If the answer to a question is Yes, we give
serves both the letter as well as the spirit the High Court 2 points. If the answer to a
of the RTI act. In order rate a particular particular question is No, we give the High
High Court, we ask the following Court 0 points. In certain cases if the
questions: answer is Yes, but the provision is
unclear ,vague or not fully complaint , we
1. Does the High Court have RTI give the High Court a point value between
Rules ? 0 and 2. We then sum up the points for all
2. Does the High Court specify a fees ten questions, to get a measure of 20
of more than Rs. 10 except points.
postage?
3. Do the rules clearly list the fees, Disclosures
payment method as name of the
beneficiary ? Our Disclosures category is a measure
4. Do the rules allow all payment of the suo-motu disclosures made by the
methods ? High courts in their websites. The Right to
Information acts mandates that public
122
authorities sou-moto put up certain hours of a library or reading room,

information on the public domain. if maintained for public use;the
Section 4(1)(b) contains 17 such names, designations and other
requirements, but some of these are less particulars of the Public
relevant for the purpose of High Courts. Information Officers;
Out of the 17 requirements we pick a list
of 7, which we believe are essential to To these 7 requirements prescribed by
High Courts: the act. We added three more that ,
though not prescribed the act, are
essential to put in the public domain:
1. the particulars of its organisation,
functions and duties and the 8. Publishes its RTI Rules.
powers and duties of its officers 9. Publishes RTI Statistics
and employees;; 10. Publishes statistics on case
2. the rules, regulations, instructions, pendency
manuals and records, held by it or
under its control or used by its
employees for discharging its If the High Court puts up one of these
functions; pieces information adequately on its
3. a statement of the categories of website we give it 2 point. If High Court
documents that are held by it or puts up one of these pieces information
under its control; on its website, but the information is
4. a directory of its officers and either unclear or inadequate, we give the
employees; High Court a point value between 0 and 2.
5. the monthly remuneration If the information is not available on its
received by each of its officers and website, we give the High Court 0 points.
employees, including the system of We then sum up the points for all twenty
compensation as provided in its requirements, to get a measure of 20
regulations; points.
6. the budget allocated to each of its
agency, indicating the particulars Decisions
of all plans, proposed
expenditures and reports on The decisions category of CTI is different
disbursements made; from the other categories in that it
7. the particulars of facilities available measures the perceptions of the court
to citizens for obtaining towards RTI rather than its
information, including the working implementation. As such, it is a more
123
subjective measure than the other from a few independent judgements.

categories. However, until it is possible to analyse
perceptions in a large N sample, we have
We look at all judgements the court has to make such inferences using the limited
given concerning RTI. If the court has information we have.
given more than 9 such judgements, we
select a random sample of 9 judgments Practice
from this pool.
The Practice measure of the CTI, deals
Our objective is then to rate the court out with how the court reacts to actual RTI
of a point-scale of 20, in order to gauge its applications, in practice. The
perceptions of RTI. To do this we ask the methodology of how we decided the
following questions: questions to ask the court have been
1. Does the court usually allow detailed in Chapter 2. The questions
requests for information? themselves can be found in Annexure 2.
2. Is the court concerned with the
applicant's substantive right to If the court has responded to an RTI
information? application adequately, we give it 2 points.
3. Does the court reject denials of If the court has responded to the RTI
information, which are based on application, but has given information
reasons outside the RTI Act? which is vague, inadequate or in an
4. Does the court reject denials of incorrect format, we give it 1 point. If the
information due to procedure? court rejects a application, we give it 0
5. Does the court uphold the spirit points. We then sum up the points for all
of the RTI act? ten applications, to get a measure of 20
points.
If the answers to all or most of these
questions is Yes in the majority of the
Speed
courts decision, we give the court a high
score. If the answer to a majority of these
The speed criteria is to ascertain how
questions is No, we give the court a low
fast a court deals with particular RTI
score. Ultimately, however this scale is
applications. The RTI act itself mandates
based on our subjective inference about
that a particular application should be
the courts general perception.
disposed off in 30 days. We rate whether
the court actually does so for the ten
Ultimately, it is difficult to judge the
applications mentioned in Annexure 2. It
perceptions of the institution as a whole
is immaterial for the speed criteria,
124
whether the application was rejected or

accepted, what is relevant is whether it
was sent promptly.
If an application is replied to within 21

days, we give the court 2 points. If the
application is replied to within 30 days,
we give the court 1.5 point. If the
application is replied to within 40 days we
give the court 1 point. If the application is
received beyond 40 days we give the
court 0.5 points. If the application is not
responded to at all, we give the court 0
points. We then sum up the points for all
ten applications, to get a measure of 20
points.
125
The Legal Systems Reform Project
Hub for Law and Policy
Azim Premji University
PES Campus Pixel Park, B Block, Electronics City, Hosur Road,
Beside NICE Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100
Email : lsrp@apu.edu.in

The Implementation of The Right To Information Act 2005 in Nine High Courts of India - A Comparative Study - LSRP

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Implementation of The Right To Information Act 2005 in Nine High Courts of India - A Comparative Study - LSRP

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Implementation of the Right to Information Act,

2005 in Nine High Courts of India - A Comparative

About the Legal System Reforms Project

For more information, please visit https://thelsr.wordpress.com/lsrp/

The Legal System Reforms Project., 2017.

Analysis of Individual High Courts.................................................................................................. 32

Allahabad High Court..................................................................................................................... 33

Annexure 1: List of Sample Courts................................................................................................ 117

Annexure 2: RTI Questionnaire...................................................................................................... 119

Annexure 3: The Court Transparency Index (CTI) rating system....................................... 122

Court Transparency Index (CTI) An ethical consideration that was brought to

Disclos Decisio Practic

Punjab and Haryana High

Himachal Pradesh High

3 Mumbai High Court 16 10 14 10 18 68

4 Delhi High Court 17 12.5 11.5 9 14 64

4 Kolkata High Court 19.5 4 12.5 12.5 15.5 64

6 Kerala High Court 14.5 9.5 13 10.5 14.5 62

7 Karnataka High Court 18.5 5.5 3 13 17 57

8 Chennai High Court 16 10 12 5.5 10 53.5

9 Allahabad High Court 12.5 10 13 8 8.5 52

There was a significant positive correlation

if the informations sought are

Chart 2.2. RTI density in sampled High Courts in 2016.

4430 2795 58 1577 1635 36.91%

Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act for disproportionately

3 Transfer to OPIO 43 16.04

Under Rule 4 of the High Court of Karnataka (Vigilance Cell)

Under Rule 3 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee

6 Under Rule 14 (More than 500 words) 36 0 0.00

On account of the Decision of the Karnataka High Court in

Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act- information available to a

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act- information which relates to

Other subsections of Section 8(1), Section 9 and Section 24

to reject RTI applications other than for

address of the applicant for the purpose of 48

In our sampled list of High courts, most

Chart 6.1. Plotting CTI practice scores based on question difficulty

In Application 8, we requested all sampled

Decisions by several different High Courts information, that is placed by a public

Finding 9. High Court registries do not court websites.73

provide information about the Judicial

Finding 11. High Courts in their judgements

Chart 10.2 illustrates a comparison of the

Chart 10.2. Comparative response times of sampled High Courts

Public Total Sample Judgements in favour of the % Judgements in

High Court 10 7 70%

Analysis of Individual High Courts

Allahabad High Court

High Court Size of High Jurisdiction RTIs filed in

Allahabad Lucknow 82 Uttar Pradesh 1298 15.83

Court Transparency Index

Criteria Score Rank

Rules 12.5 9/9

Speed 8.5 9/9

Criteria (See Annexure Rating

Does the High Court

Do the rules clearly list

Do the rules allow an

No information which can be obtained under the

-Every application shall be made for one particular item

Do the rules provide for

Do the rules provide a