Dismissing a second appeal filed by an advocate in a dispute over 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 a supplier of vegetables and fruits to the respondent public authority”.
The commission said that, 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 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”.
The commission further stressed that the “laudable objectives of the RTI Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of an advocate for seeking all kinds of information to promote his practice”.
Taking note of the public authority’s submissions that several records were destroyed in a fire and that personal information had been rightly denied under RTI 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.
