Why CIC said lawyers can’t use RTI for their clients’ cases: 'Should not become a tool to...'

Representative image

• CIC rules advocates can't use RTI to seek info for cases handled for clients
• RTI Act's objectives can't be used for personal ends by practising advocates
• Appeal dismissed; info rightly denied due to exemptions and destroyed records

Did our AI summary help?

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled on how far the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) can be used, saying that advocates cannot invoke the law to seek details connected to cases they are handling for clients.

The ruling came while rejecting a second appeal filed by a lawyer in a dispute linked to the cancellation of a fruits-and-vegetables supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana, reported news agency PTI.

The Information Commissioner, Sudha Rani Relangi, observed that the information request was made “on behalf of his brother, who used to be supplier of vegetables/fruits to the respondent public authority”.

A key issue before the commission was why the supplier himself had not approached the authorities under the RTI Act. In the absence of any such justification, the CIC said, “it appears that the appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se, which is not permissible”.

To underline its reasoning, the commission relied on a Madras High Court ruling, quoting it to note that “a practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client”.

The high court had warned that allowing such a practice would mean “every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for getting information on behalf of his client”, a situation that “does not advance the objects of the scheme of the RTI Act”.

The commission further cited the court to stress that the transparency law has a defined purpose, observing that the “laudable objectives of the RTI Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practice”.

In this case, the public authority had also stated that some records were lost in a fire and that certain personal details were exempt from disclosure. After examining these claims, the CIC said it found “no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO”.

The appeal was ultimately closed, with the commission directing that copies of written submissions be shared with the appellant, but without granting any further relief.