Supreme Court ruled that RTI fee no more than Rs 50. The SC bench said that public authorities cannot ask for more than Rs5 for each page for photocopying charge, & motive need not to be disclosed while filing out the form.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.194 OF 2012


COMMON CAUSE PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

T.C.(C) No. 129 of 2013

W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2014

T.C.(C) No. 32 of 2014

W.P.(C) No. 40 of 2016

W.P.(C) No. 205 of 2016

SLP(C) No. 30659 of 2017

 

O R D E R

W.P.(C) No.194 of 2012, W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2014, W.P.(C)

No. 40 of 2016 & W.P.(C) No. 205 of 2016 :

 

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in these set of writ petitions is to the Rules framed under Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short "the Act").

First objection of the petitioners is that the charges for the application fee and per page charges for the information supplied should be reasonable.

Click Here to Download App


We are of the view that, as a normal Rule, the charge for the application should not be more than Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be more than Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt with differently. This will not debar revision in future, if situation so demands.

Second objection is against requiring of disclosure of motive for seeking the information. No motive needs to be disclosed in view of the scheme of the Act.

Third objection is to the requirement, in the Allahabad High Court Rules, for permission of the Chief Justice or the Judge concerned to the disclosure of information. We make it clear that the said requirement will be only in respect of information which is exempted under the scheme of the Act.


 
As regards the objection that under Section 6(3) of the Act, the public authority has to transfer the application to another public authority if information is not available, the said provision should also normally be complied with except where the public authority dealing with the application is not aware as to which other authority will be the appropriate authority.

As regards Rules 25 to 27 of the Allahabad High Court Rules which debar giving of information with regard to the matters pending adjudication, it is clarified that the same may be read consistent with Section 8 of the Act, more particularly sub-section (1) in Clause (J) thereof.

Wherever rules do not comply with the above observations, the same be revisited as our observations are based on mandate of the Act which must be complied with.

The writ petitions are disposed of in above terms.

 SLP(C) No. 30659/2017 :

In view of order passed in W.P.(C) No.194 of 2012, the special leave petition is disposed of. The award of cost imposed by the High Court 1is set aside.

T.C.(C) No. 129/2013 & T.C.(C) No. 32/2014

In view of order passed in W.P.(C) No.194 of 2012, the transfer cases are disposed of.

..........................J.

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

..........................J.

 [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

NEW DELHI

20th March, 2018