An advocate cannot seek information on behalf of a client under the RTI Act: CIC

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed an appeal filed by an advocate seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act related to the termination of a fruits and vegetables supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana, observing that an advocate cannot seek information on behalf of a client using the RTI mechanism.

Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi, while disposing of the second appeal, noted that the appellant, an advocate by profession, had sought information on behalf of his brother, who was a supplier to PM Shri Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Odhan in Sirsa district. “In the absence of any fact stated by the Appellant as to why he is seeking details on behalf of his brother, who can personally ask information as a citizen, it appears that the Appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se, which is not permissible,” the CIC observed.

In its order, the apex information body relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court, which had held that a practising advocate “can personally ask for information as a citizen but not as an advocate on behalf of his client,” cautioning that the RTI Act should not become “a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practice.”

The CIC reproduced the Madras High Court’s observation that “the laudable objects of the scheme of the R.T.I. Act cannot be used for personal ends.”

The appellant had sought voluminous information dating back to 2019, including tender advertisements, quotations, committee details, laboratory reports, blacklisting orders, service records, salary and property disclosures of a Section Officer, and inspection reports relating to the alleged supply of low-quality vegetables on December 5, 2022.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and Principal of the school had informed the applicant that a large part of the records could not be furnished as they were destroyed in a fire that broke out in the school office on the night of July 12, 2024. “Due to the incident of fire in the school office, all records have been burnt and destroyed. Hence, information cannot be provided,” the reply stated, enclosing copies of the police diary and fire department report.

For several other queries, the CPIO denied disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, stating that the information sought was personal in nature. Noting the school authorities’ submission that the contract had been cancelled following repeated deficiencies in supply and the issuance of three warning letters, the CIC found “no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO” and held it to be in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005.

In the spirit of the RTI Act, the CIC directed the CPIO to provide the appellant, free of cost, copies of his written submissions, along with enclosures, within one day of the date of receipt of its order.

Dismissing the appeal, Information Commissioner Relangi said, “With the above direction, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted.”

IANS