“Court held that the information held by the Court on the judicial side are the “personal information” of the litigants like title cases and family court matters, etc. Under the guise of seeking information under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to be abused and information not to be misused”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies via filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required, it is not justify to invoke Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources, which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid.
The Hon’ble court further observed that the parties to a proceeding in the Supreme Court shall be entitled to obtain certified copies by making appropriate application and the court fees payable as per the “Supreme Court Rules”. So far as the third parties are concerned, as per Order XIII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, the court on the application of a person who is not a party to the case, appeal or matter, pending or disposed of, may on good cause shown, allow such person to receive such copies as is or are mentioned in the Order XIII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules. Thus, as per the Supreme Court Rules also, the third party is required to show good cause for obtaining certified copies of the documents or orders.
Ten categories of information are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) to (j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) excludes disclosure of personal information, the disclosure of which :- (i) has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (ii) would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, in both the cases, the Central Public Information Officer, or the appellate authority may order disclosure of such information; if they are satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure. This would imply that personal information which has some relationship to any public activity or interest may be liable to be disclosed. An invasion of privacy may be held to be justified if the larger public interest so warrants.
In order to maintain the confidentiality of the documents and other information pertaining to the litigants to the proceedings and to maintain proper balance, Rules of the Supreme Court insist upon the third party to file an application/affidavit to obtain information/certified copies of the documents