Mumbai, Feb 01: A recent order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) barring advocates from using the Right to Information (RTI) Act in matters they are handling for clients has drawn strong criticism
from members of the legal fraternity, who say the ruling misconstrues the purpose and scope of the transparency law.
CIC order and rationale
The CIC dismissed a second appeal filed by an advocate in a contractual dispute involving a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana, holding that a “practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client”.
Citing a Madras High Court ruling, the commission said permitting lawyers to seek such information would not further the objectives of the RTI Act and could turn it into a tool for advancing legal practice.
Concerns over purpose of RTI Act
Senior advocate Jamshed Mistry said the approach overlooks the historical context of the RTI Act. Before its enactment, litigants often had to approach high courts simply to obtain basic information from public authorities.
“Very often, the first prayer in writ petitions, particularly in public interest litigation, was to seek directions to furnish information that was being denied,” he said, noting that this led to delays and unnecessary use of judicial time.
He added that the RTI Act was meant to provide a statutory, citizen-friendly mechanism to avoid such situations and stressed that the Madras High Court ruling relied upon by the CIC is not final and can be challenged before the Supreme Court.
Locus standi debate
Advocate Aditya Pratap said the CIC’s reasoning runs contrary to the plain language of the Act. He pointed to Section 6(2), which states that an applicant is not required to give any reason for seeking information. “By denying information because the applicant is an advocate acting for a client, the commission has introduced the concept of locus standi, which the RTI Act does not recognise,” he said.
Pratap also cited Supreme Court rulings that recognise the right to information as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). “If information does not fall under the exemptions in Section 8, it cannot be denied based on who seeks it,” he said, warning that additional restrictions would be unconstitutional.
Impact on accountability
Advocate Siddh Vidya said the order risks weakening the RTI framework by ignoring practical realities. While the law is available to all citizens, she said the process often requires legal expertise. “Advocates act as facilitators of a citizen’s right to know, not as proxy litigants,” she said.
Also Watch:
Vidya noted that several public interest litigations exposing administrative lapses have stemmed from RTI applications filed by lawyers. “Barring advocates from using the RTI Act reduces it from a tool of accountability to a hollow formality and shields public authorities from scrutiny,” she said.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
