The Kerala High Court has struck down the 20-page limit on the free supply of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to persons below the poverty line (BPL), ruling that such a restriction is not contemplated under the Act.
Court Order and Petition
Justice C P Mohammed Nias passed the order on a petition filed by Nishad Shobanan of Mulavana, Ernakulam. The petition challenged the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, which restricted the free supply of information to BPL individuals to 20 pages.
Shobanan argued that the proviso was contrary to Section 7(5) of the RTI Act, which states that no fee shall be charged from persons below the poverty line. He pointed out that the cap was introduced in January 2015.
Court Observations
During the hearing, the High Court observed that the very purpose of the RTI Act is to empower citizens, promote transparency and accountability in government functioning, contain corruption, and make democracy work for the people in its true sense. Any interpretation of the provisions of the Act, the court said, must advance rather than defeat these foundational objectives.
The court further noted that the impugned proviso restricted the free supply of information to 20 pages and mandated payment of fees beyond that limit. Its effect was not merely to qualify or explain the rule but to substantially curtail the exemption granted to BPL individuals under the Act. The proviso imposed a financial burden on a category of persons whom the statute expressly exempts from payment of any fee.
Legal Reasoning
The High Court held that a proviso cannot be used to rewrite a rule or introduce a substantive restriction that the legislature has consciously omitted. The rule-making authority, under the guise of preventing misuse, cannot curtail a statutory right conferred by Parliament. Administrative convenience or apprehensions of abuse, the court added, cannot justify dilution of a legislative mandate.
Accordingly, the court declared the proviso to Rule 4(4) ultra vires the parent statute and struck it down as illegal and void.
