Unqualified BPL Fee Exemption Under Section 7(5) RTI Act: Page-Caps in State RTI Fee Rules Are Ultra Vires

1. Introduction

Case: NISHAD SHOBANAN, v. THE UNION OF INDIA (2026 KER 13231), decided by the Kerala High Court on 13-02-2026 (Mohammed Nias C.P., J.) in W.P(C) No.3530/2024.

Parties: The petitioner, Nishad Shobanan, an RTI activist stated to be a person below the poverty line (BPL), challenged a fee-limiting proviso contained in the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006 (“Kerala RTI Rules”). The respondents were (1) Union of India (DoPT) and (2) State of Kerala.

Factual backdrop: The petitioner sought audit reports and related records from the Co-operative Society Registrar concerning certain co-operative institutions. He was asked to pay for copies beyond a free limit because Rule 4(4) of the Kerala RTI Rules, as amended in 2015, restricted free supply to BPL applicants to 20 pages.

Core legal issue: Whether the proviso to Rule 4(4) limiting free supply of information to BPL applicants to twenty pages is ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), particularly Section 7(5), which states in categorical terms that “no fee shall be charged from the persons who are below the poverty line”.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that Section 7(5) of the RTI Act grants an absolute and unqualified fee exemption to BPL applicants. The Kerala rule-making authority could not, via delegated legislation, dilute that statutory command by capping free copies at twenty pages and charging thereafter. The proviso to Rule 4(4) was found to be in direct conflict with the parent statute and was therefore struck down as ultra vires.

Result: The writ petition was allowed; the proviso to Rule 4(4) restricting free supply to BPL persons to twenty pages was declared illegal, void, and ultra vires the RTI Act.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The decision is anchored in established doctrine on the limits of delegated legislation and the interpretive role of provisos. The Court deployed a line of Supreme Court authorities to demonstrate that subordinate legislation cannot override, supplant, or contradict the parent statute.

A. Delegated legislation must remain within the statute

  • General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Anr v. Dr Subhash Chandra Yadav and Another (1988 (2) SCC 351): Cited for the principle that a rule obtains statutory force only if it conforms to the statute under which it is framed and remains within delegated power.
  • Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration v. Sri Ram (2000 (5) SCC 451) and Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) v. Siri Ram [(2000) 5 SCC 451]: Relied upon to underline that rule-making cannot extend to creating conditions inconsistent with the Act. (The judgment text contains both spellings; the case is treated as the same authority.)
  • State of T.N. and Another v. P. Krishnamurthy and Others (2006 (4) SCC 517): Supports judicial review of subordinate legislation, including invalidation where the rule is ultra vires the enabling Act.
  • St. John's Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, and Another (2003 (3) SCC 321): Cited for the proposition that delegated rules cannot exceed statutory purpose or introduce restrictions the Act does not contemplate.
  • Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another (1975 (1) SCC 421): Invoked for the broader theme that statutory bodies cannot enlarge powers beyond legislative intent.
  • Union of India v. S. Srinivasan [(2012) 7 SCC 683]: Cited as authority that subordinate legislation cannot “supplant” the statute and must remain consistent with it.
  • Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 641]: Referred to for the principle that subordinate legislation does not enjoy the same immunity as plenary legislation and is reviewable for vires and unreasonableness.
  • Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2000) 3 SCC 40] and Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2009) 16 SCC 569]: Used to reinforce that rule-making cannot create substantive limitations contrary to statutory command.

B. How provisos are to be interpreted

  • Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [AIR 1966 SC 12]: A proviso ordinarily “excepts” or “qualifies” and is not meant to rewrite the main provision.
  • S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman [(1985) 1 SCC 591]: Central to the Court’s reasoning on provisos—while in rare cases a proviso may take on substantive colour, it cannot be construed to destroy, nullify, or enlarge the main enactment; harmony-preserving construction is preferred.
  • Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Tarun Pal Singh and Ors (MANU/SC/1681/2017): Cited as reaffirmation of the limited office of a proviso and the need to prevent it from overriding the principal provision.

C. Comparative reference indicating judicial trend

  • Busa Nikhil v. High Court for the State of Telangana & Ors. (WP No.19960/2023): Noted as persuasive support that RTI rules denying or diluting BPL exemption conflict with Section 7(5); the Telangana proceedings were closed as infructuous after steps were initiated to amend rules to conform to the Central Act.

D. Materials relied upon by the State to justify the cap (but rejected as a legal basis)

  • A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court judgment dated 24.09.2014 in LP Appeal No. 1102 of 2014, cited by the State to show potential misuse via proxies.
  • Shama Praveen v. NHRC (Appeal No. CIC/OK/2006/00717) dated 18.04.2007, cited to suggest scrutiny for “genuine” seekers versus “proxy” requests.

The Kerala High Court accepted that concerns of misuse may exist, but held that such concerns cannot authorize delegated legislation to contradict an express statutory command.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

  1. Section 7(5) is mandatory, categorical, and unqualified: The Court emphasized the language of Section 7(5)—“no fee shall be charged”—as admitting no exception, no discretion, and no quantitative limitation (such as pages).
  2. Rule-making power under Section 27 is supplemental, not substitutive: Even though Section 27(2)(c) enables rule-making regarding fees under Section 7(1) and Section 7(5), the delegate may only “carry out” the Act, not defeat it. The Court treated the power as one of implementation rather than alteration of a substantive right/exemption granted by Parliament.
  3. Direct conflict, not merely tension with “scheme”: The Court distinguished situations where rules are alleged to conflict with the “object” of a statute (where caution is warranted) from cases of direct inconsistency with an express statutory mandate (where invalidation is straightforward). Here, the page-cap was held to directly contradict Section 7(5).
  4. A proviso cannot be used to dilute the main rule or the parent Act: The Kerala RTI Rules’ substantive Rule 4(4) mirrored Section 7(5) by exempting BPL persons from fee. The proviso introduced in 2015, by restricting free supply to twenty pages, was found to “substantially curtail” the exemption and thus operate as an impermissible substantive restriction.
  5. Misuse concerns do not permit legislative dilution by delegate: The State’s justification—proxy use of BPL applicants to avoid fees—was treated as, at best, an administrative concern. The Court held that “administrative convenience or apprehension of abuse” cannot override a legislative mandate.
  6. RTI’s purpose as a guiding interpretive principle: The Court reiterated the RTI Act’s objectives—transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, and democratic empowerment—and held that interpretation must advance, not defeat, these ends.

3.3 Impact

  • Immediate effect in Kerala: Public authorities in Kerala cannot enforce any page-based cap on the BPL fee exemption under Rule 4(4). BPL applicants are entitled to information without fee, irrespective of the number of pages (subject, of course, to other lawful exemptions under the RTI Act).
  • Constraint on State-level RTI fee rules: The judgment signals that any State rule that imposes a financial burden on BPL applicants— whether by page-caps, partial exemptions, or conditional exemptions—risks being struck down as ultra vires Section 7(5).
  • Administrative redesign rather than substantive curtailment: While the Court rejected page-caps, governments and public authorities may respond by strengthening procedural safeguards consistent with the Act (e.g., verifying BPL status, preventing fraud, ensuring applications are properly made), rather than imposing fee conditions that conflict with Section 7(5).
  • Persuasive precedent for other jurisdictions: Alongside the reference to Busa Nikhil v. High Court for the State of Telangana & Ors., this decision contributes to an emerging judicial insistence on uniform fidelity to Section 7(5), limiting local experimentation that effectively charges BPL applicants.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Delegated (subordinate) legislation
Rules made by the executive under authority granted by a statute. Such rules must stay within the boundaries of the statute and cannot contradict it.
Ultra vires
“Beyond power.” If a rule goes beyond what the statute permits—or conflicts with the statute—it can be declared void by courts.
Parent Act vs. Rules
The RTI Act, 2005 is the parent law made by Parliament. Kerala RTI Rules are made under the Act to implement it. If there is a clash, the Act prevails.
Proviso
A qualifying clause appended to a provision. It ordinarily carves out exceptions or clarifies, but cannot be used to take away the main right or reverse the main rule.
Section 7(5) RTI Act
A statutory protection for BPL applicants: the Act mandates that no fee shall be charged from them. The Kerala High Court read this as an absolute exemption that rules cannot cap by page count.

5. Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s ruling establishes a clear principle: State RTI fee rules cannot impose page-limits or similar caps that effectively charge BPL applicants, because Section 7(5) of the RTI Act provides an unqualified fee exemption. By striking down the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala RTI Rules, the Court reinforced the supremacy of the parent statute over delegated legislation, clarified the limited role of provisos, and strengthened RTI access for economically vulnerable citizens.