Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat
Where a public authority has its own non-conflicting procedure to give information (for example, the High Court Rules for certified copies of records), that procedure applies. The RTI Act overrides other laws only where there is an actual inconsistency.
Issue before the court
Whether a third party must use the RTI Act or the High Court Rules to obtain certified copies of judicial records, and the scope of the RTI Act’s overriding effect under Section 22.
Facts in brief
A request for certified copies of court records raised the question of whether the RTI Act or the Gujarat High Court Rules — which require an application stating the reason for seeking the information — should govern access.
Holding / decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court Rules merely prescribe a different procedure and are not inconsistent with the RTI Act. In the absence of an inherent inconsistency, the RTI Act’s overriding effect under Section 22 does not displace them, and the information is to be obtained through the High Court Rules.
Section 22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect only where another law is inconsistent with it; a non-conflicting special procedure continues to apply.
If the body you are approaching has its own non-conflicting procedure to give the information (such as court certified copies), you may need to use that route rather than RTI.
When to cite this case
When a public authority points to its own rules to handle your request, or to argue the scope of Section 22’s overriding effect.
Later developments / current status
It is frequently cited on the interface between the RTI Act and the special rules of courts and other bodies.
Source & verification
Related FileMyRTI services
Use RTI Dost to frame your request for the correct route.
Login / Sign up
Login With Google
Continue as GuestOr use your email Address
*We value your trust. Your information remains private and protected with FileMyRTI