New Delhi, The Central Information Commission has ruled that advocates cannot use the Right to Information Act to seek details regarding cases they are handling for clients, observing that using the transparency law in this manner fails to advance its core objectives.
Dismissing a second appeal filed by an advocate in a dispute related to the termination of a fruits-and-vegetables supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi noted that the appellant had sought information "on behalf of his brother, who used to be supplier of vegetables/fruits to the respondent public authority".
The commission said in the absence of any explanation as to why the supplier himself could not seek the information, "it appears that the appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se, which is not permissible".
Quoting a Madras High Court order, the CIC underlined that "a practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client".
The high court had cautioned that otherwise, "every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for getting information on behalf of his client", which "does not advance the objects of the scheme of the RTI Act".
{{/usCountry}}The high court had cautioned that otherwise, "every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for getting information on behalf of his client", which "does not advance the objects of the scheme of the RTI Act".
{{/usCountry}}The commission further quoted the ruling to stress that the "laudable objectives of the RTI Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practice".
Taking note of the claims made by the public authority that several records were destroyed in a fire and that personal information was rightly denied under exemptions, the CIC said it found "no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO".
The appeal was accordingly disposed of, with a direction to share copies of written submissions with the appellant.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.