The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that a practising advocate cannot invoke the Right to Information (RTI) Act to seek information on behalf of a client, reiterating that the right under the statute is available to citizens in their personal capacity and not as a professional tool for lawyers.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi passed the order while deciding a second appeal filed by Advocate Paramjeet Yadav, who had sought extensive information regarding the termination of a contract for supply of fruits and vegetables to PM Shree Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sirsa, Haryana. The RTI application requested multiple records including tender notices, quotations, committee details, inspection reports, and documents relating to the blacklisting of the supplier.
The appellant had sought the information in connection with the termination of a supply contract allegedly held by his brother’s firm, which had been providing fruits and vegetables to the school for approximately three years. The applicant alleged irregularities in the termination of the contract and sought documentary records related to procurement and inspection processes between 2019 and 2024.
In response, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed that several requested records were unavailable as the school office had suffered a fire incident on 12 July 2024, which resulted in the destruction of records. Copies of the police diary and fire department report were provided to support the claim. Additionally, certain information relating to the service details and personal particulars of a school official was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of personal information.
During the proceedings, the respondent clarified that the appellant’s brother had earlier been awarded the supply contract but deficiencies were found in the quality of goods supplied. After issuing three warning letters, the contract was cancelled. The respondent also denied allegations of favouritism or any relationship between the school’s Section Officer and the current supplier.
Examining the matter, the Commission observed that the appellant, being an advocate, had sought the information essentially on behalf of his brother. The Commission relied on the decision of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in N. Saravanan v. Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu, W.P. (MD) No. 4336 of 2017, which held that advocates cannot use the RTI Act to obtain information relating to matters pursued on behalf of clients.
The Commission noted that permitting such requests would allow practising lawyers to routinely invoke the RTI mechanism for obtaining information in cases handled for clients, which would run contrary to the objectives of the RTI framework.
Finding no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO and noting that the appellant did not appear during the hearing to contest the submissions of the respondent, the Commission declined to intervene further in the matter.
However, in the spirit of transparency, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide the appellant with copies of written submissions filed during the proceedings along with supporting documents free of cost.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of with the above directions.
