RTI Act's Fee Provisions for Certified Copies Confirmed: Chandravadan Dhruv v. State of Gujarat

Introduction

The case of Chandravadan Dhruv Petitioner(s) v. State Of Gujarat & 740 (S) adjudicated by the Gujarat High Court on December 21, 2013, serves as a critical examination of the provisions under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). Chandravadan Dhruv, a professional journalist, challenged the State Information Commission's order that dismissed his numerous complaints regarding the duty of public authorities to proactively disclose information. The central issue revolved around whether public authorities are mandated to provide certified copies of proactive disclosures free of charge or can impose fees as stipulated under the RTI Act.

Summary of the Judgment

Chandravadan Dhruv filed **739 RTI applications** seeking certified copies of proactively disclosed information from various public authorities in the State of Gujarat. The public authorities rejected these applications on grounds including the imposition of a fee of ₹20 per copy, availability of information on official websites, and non-permissibility of supplying copies without payment. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the State Information Commission, which acknowledged the lack of merit in his complaints but issued directions under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to ensure compliance with proactive disclosure requirements.

Upon appeal, the Gujarat High Court examined whether the State Information Commission erred in dismissing the complaints. The court upheld the Commission's decision, agreeing that while public authorities are obligated to provide access to records free of charge for inspection purposes, supplying certified copies can rightfully incur fees as per Section 6 of the RTI Act. The court also recognized the importance of proactive disclosure but maintained that fee imposition for certified copies aligns with the statutory framework.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references the Supreme Court case The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya (AIR 2011 SC 3336) to elucidate the dual objectives of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the balance between ensuring transparency and protecting other public interests such as efficient government functioning and confidentiality of sensitive information. This precedent reinforced the High Court's stance on the legitimacy of charging fees for certified copies while advocating for robust proactive disclosure by public authorities.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the RTI Act, particularly Section 6, which permits public authorities to levy fees for certified copies of information. It distinguished between **inspection access**, which must be provided free of charge, and **certified copies**, where fees are permissible. The court underscored that the State Information Commission acted within its remit by recognizing the validity of fee imposition under the statutory provisions.

Additionally, the Court examined the Gujarat Right to Information Rules, 2010, which align with the Act's provisions regarding application fees and methods of payment. The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s contention that information should be free of charge lacked merit, as the RTI framework explicitly allows for such fees to cover the cost of providing certified copies.

Impact

This judgment reiterates the importance of adhering to the RTI Act's provisions concerning the balance between proactive disclosure and the legitimacy of fee imposition. By upholding the State Information Commission's decision, the Gujarat High Court sets a clear precedent that while public authorities must actively disseminate information, the provision of certified copies can be subject to reasonable fees. This ensures that transparency is maintained without overburdening public authorities financially.

Future cases involving disputes over fees for information copies can reference this judgment to support the argument that such fees are lawful and necessary under the RTI framework. Moreover, the emphasis on proactive disclosure encourages public authorities to enhance their transparency mechanisms, thereby fostering greater accountability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Proactive Disclosure: The obligation of public authorities to actively publish certain categories of information without waiting for requests, thereby enhancing transparency.
Certified Copy: An officially certified duplicate of a document, which may require a fee to cover the costs associated with its production.
Section 6 of the RTI Act: This section outlines the process for requesting information, including the permissible fees that can be charged by public authorities for providing certified copies.
Section 25(5) of the RTI Act: Grants the Information Commission the power to issue recommendations to public authorities to ensure compliance with the RTI Act.

Conclusion

The Gujarat High Court's decision in Chandravadan Dhruv v. State of Gujarat serves as a reaffirmation of the RTI Act's provisions concerning the provision of information. By upholding the legitimacy of charging fees for certified copies, the court balanced the need for transparency with the practical considerations of public authority operations. This judgment reinforces the dual mandate of the RTI Act: to enhance government accountability through proactive disclosure while allowing for reasonable fee structures to ensure the sustainability of information dissemination mechanisms. Consequently, the decision holds significant implications for both public authorities and information seekers, promoting a more structured and financially viable approach to information transparency in India.