Court Declares Proviso in Kerala RTI Rules Ultra Vires, Reinforces Unqualified Rights Under RTI Act
In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court has struck down a contentious proviso in the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, which restricted the free supply of information to Below Poverty Line (BPL) applicants to a mere twenty pages. The judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., underscores the unqualified right conferred by Section 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which mandates no fee for BPL applicants, thus ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.
The case arose when petitioner Nishad Shobanan, a prominent RTI activist, challenged the validity of Rule 4(4) of the Kerala RTI Rules that imposed this limitation. Represented by Advocate Sri T.U. Sujith Kumar, the petitioner argued that the proviso was ultra vires the parent statute, the RTI Act, 2005, which clearly states that no fee shall be charged from BPL applicants. The petitioner contended that such delegated legislation must align with the parent Act and cannot exceed the legislative mandate.
The State of Kerala, represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina and Government Pleader Smt. Devishri R., justified the proviso as a measure to prevent misuse by applicants who engaged BPL individuals to evade fees. However, the Court found this argument insufficient to override statutory rights.
In his judgment, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. elaborated on the doctrine of ultra vires, emphasizing that rule-making authorities must operate strictly within the confines of the enabling Act. The Court concluded that the proviso directly conflicted with the express provision of the RTI Act, rendering it invalid. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that a proviso cannot nullify or enlarge the scope of the main statutory provision it accompanies.
The decision is expected to have significant implications for RTI applicants, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, by reaffirming their right to access information without financial barriers. This ruling sends a strong message against attempts to dilute statutory rights under the guise of administrative convenience or misuse prevention.
Bottom line:-
Rule-making authority cannot introduce provisions in delegated legislation that dilute or restrict the unconditional rights conferred by the parent statute, such as those under section 7(5) of the Right To Information Act, 2005, which mandates no fee for below poverty line (BPL) applicants.
Statutory provision(s): Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 7(5), Section 27; Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006 - Rule 4(4)
Nishad Shobanan v. Union of India, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853450
