CIC Issues Landmark Order Restricting Advocates' Use of RTI Act
In a significant development, the Central Information Commission has delivered a clear ruling. Advocates cannot utilize the Right to Information Act to seek details about cases they are handling for their clients. The CIC explicitly referenced a judgment from the Madras High Court. This judgment strongly emphasized that using the RTI law in this manner fundamentally undermines its core purpose.
Case Details and Commissioner's Rationale
The ruling emerged from a specific appeal. Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi dismissed a second appeal filed by an advocate. This dispute centered on the termination of a fruits and vegetables supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana.
In her order dated January 12, Commissioner Relangi provided detailed reasoning. She noted the appellant is an advocate by profession. He sought information on behalf of his brother, who was the former supplier. Relangi pointed out a critical absence. The appellant did not state any facts explaining why he was seeking the information instead of his brother. His brother, as a citizen, could personally request the details.
"It appears that the appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se," Relangi stated. "This is not permissible in view of the judgment passed by the Madras HC."
The Madras High Court Precedent
The commissioner heavily relied on the Madras High Court's reasoning. The court had previously addressed a similar RTI matter. It upheld the dismissal of an appeal from a practicing advocate. The court made a crucial distinction. An advocate can seek information personally as a citizen. However, they cannot do so specifically on behalf of a client in a professional capacity.
The High Court's judgment was unequivocal. "The reasoning given by the first respondent cannot be faulted at all," it stated. The court warned against a potential misuse of the law. If every practicing advocate started invoking the RTI Act for client information, it would not advance the scheme's objectives.
"The Act cannot be used for personal ends," the judgment clarified. "It should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information to promote his practice." The court described the laudable objects of the RTI Act, which must be protected from such professional exploitation.
Broader Application of the Ruling
Commissioner Relangi applied this same principle in another recent case. This case involved the Inland Waterways Authority of India. Here, the appellant, a lawyer, had filed RTI applications and subsequent appeals on behalf of his client. He contended that a satisfactory response was never provided.
Both the January 12 and January 14 orders were passed by Relangi. These orders disposed of the respective cases. She consistently cited the Madras High Court judgment as the binding precedent. This establishes a clear standard for future RTI applications filed by legal professionals.
This ruling reinforces the boundary between professional legal practice and the citizen-centric framework of the Right to Information Act. It aims to preserve the act's intent as a tool for public transparency, not for legal casework.
