Rejecting a second appeal brought by an advocate regarding the termination of a fruits-and-vegetables supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi remarked that the appellant had requested information “on behalf of his brother, who was a supplier of vegetables and fruits to the respondent public authority.”
The commission indicated that, without any justification for why the supplier could not request the information themselves, “it appears that the appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se, which is not permissible.”
Citing a ruling from the Madras High Court, the CIC emphasized that “a practising advocate cannot seek information pertaining to cases brought by him on behalf of his client.”
The high court had warned that otherwise, “every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for obtaining information on behalf of his client,” which “does not further the objectives of the scheme of the RTI Act.”
The commission further highlighted that the “commendable aims of the RTI Act cannot be exploited for personal gain and should not serve as a means for an advocate to obtain all types of information to enhance his practice.”
Considering the submissions from the public authority regarding the destruction of several records in a fire and the appropriate denial of personal information under RTI exemptions, the CIC stated it found “no issues with the response provided by the CPIO.”
The appeal was thus resolved, with a directive to provide copies of written submissions to the appellant.
