Kerala HC strikes down cap on providing free RTI info to persons below poverty line

Kochi: High court has struck down the 20-page limit on the free supply of information under the RTI Act to persons below the poverty line, holding that such a restriction is not contemplated under the Act.Justice C P Mohammed Nias passed the order on a petition by Nishad Shobanan of Mulavana, Ernakulam, challenging the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, which restricted the free supply of information to persons below the poverty line to 20 pages. Shobanan contended that the proviso was contrary to Section 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, which provides that no fee shall be charged from persons below the poverty line.

He pointed out that the cap was introduced in Jan 2015.During hearing, HC observed that the very purpose of the RTI Act is to empower citizens, promote transparency and accountability in govt functioning, contain corruption, and make democracy work for the people in its true sense. Any interpretation of the provisions of the Act, HC said, must advance rather than defeat these foundational objectives.HC further noted that the impugned proviso restricted the free supply of information to 20 pages and mandated payment of fees beyond that limit.

Its effect was not merely to qualify or explain the rule but to substantially curtail the exemption granted to persons below the poverty line under the Act. The proviso imposed a financial burden on a category of persons whom the statute expressly exempts from payment of any fee.HC held that a proviso cannot be used to rewrite a rule or introduce a substantive restriction that the legislature has consciously omitted. The rule-making authority, under the guise of preventing misuse, cannot curtail a statutory right conferred by Parliament. Administrative convenience or apprehensions of abuse, HC added, cannot justify dilution of a legislative mandate. Accordingly, it declared the proviso to Rule 4(4) ultra vires the parent statute and struck it down as illegal and void.