Sunday 7 March 2021

The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015)
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER …..Appellant
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND 
ANOTHER …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T.     
                                       42. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that
such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the
information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an
effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining
certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure    filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating
the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not
find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt
a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time
and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends
to avoid. 
43. We summarise our conclusion:-
(i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating
a third party to have access to the
information/obtaining the certified copies of the
documents or orders requires to file an
application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking
the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions
of the RTI Act; but merely lays down a different
procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for
obtaining information. In the absence of inherent
inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act
and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not
apply. 
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on
the judicial side to be obtained through the
mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the
provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.
44. In the light of aforesaid reasonings, the impugned order dated
13.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in
Letters Patent Appeal No.1348 of 2013 is confirmed and these
appeals are dismissed. We place on record the valuable assistance
rendered by Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni as amicus.
..…………………….J.
 [R. BANUMATHI]
..…………………….J.
 [A.S. BOPANNA]
..……………………….J.
 [HRISHIKESH ROYNew Delhi;
March 04, 2020.

Monday 1 March 2021

Pendency of cases not a ground for rejection of bail



Jaichand v. State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court
30 May, 1991
Judgment

(1) Petitioners bail application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that about 20 cases are pending against the petitioner.

(2) Mr. Balwada argued that this is no ground for cancelling the bail application. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on jaipal v. State of rajasthan,1, wherein it has been held that if other cases were pending against the petitioner, in that case, the bail application should not have been rejected on that grand. I agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and as such i am inclined to grant him bail u/s 439 cr. P. C. It is, therefore, order perfect accused petitioner jail hand be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bail bond in the sum of rs. 6,000/ - with two sureties the sum of rs. 3,000/ - each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court, as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case.