The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that advocates cannot invoke the RTI mechanism to obtain information in matters they are handling on behalf of their clients. The Commission held that such use of the law runs contrary to its core objectives and amounts to a misuse of the transparency framework.
The ruling was delivered by Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi while dismissing a second appeal filed by a practising advocate in connection with a contractual dispute involving the supply of fruits and vegetables to a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana. The advocate had sought information relating to the termination of the supply contract, which had been awarded to his brother.
In her order dated January 12, the Information Commissioner noted that the appellant, though claiming to act as a citizen, was in effect seeking information on behalf of another individual who was fully competent to approach the public authority on his own. The Commission observed that the advocate had failed to explain why the actual affected party had not filed the RTI application himself, leading to the inference that the request was made in the capacity of a legal representative rather than as an independent citizen.
Relying heavily on a judgment of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), the CIC reiterated that while advocates do not lose their status as citizens, they cannot deploy the RTI Act as a litigation tool to gather information for cases they are professionally engaged in. The High Court, in the cited judgment, had upheld the rejection of an RTI appeal on the ground that permitting lawyers to routinely seek information for their clients would dilute the very purpose of the legislation.
The High Court had reasoned that if such a practice were allowed, every practising advocate would resort to RTI applications to collect information for litigation, thereby converting the transparency law into a substitute for established legal procedures. Such a trend, the court cautioned, would neither serve public interest nor advance the objectives of openness and accountability that underpin the RTI framework.
The court had further underscored that the RTI Act is not intended to serve private or professional ends, nor should it become an instrument for advocates to enhance or facilitate their legal practice by seeking “all kinds of information” unrelated to broader public interest.
Information Commissioner Relangi adopted the same reasoning in another order dated January 14, involving the Inland Waterways Authority of India. In that case as well, a lawyer had filed RTI applications and pursued appeals on behalf of his client, alleging inadequate disclosure of information. The Commission dismissed the appeals, again citing the Madras High Court’s ruling and reiterating that such conduct falls outside the permissible use of the RTI Act.
Through these orders, the CIC has sent a clear message that while the RTI Act remains a powerful tool for citizens to seek transparency from public authorities, it cannot be repurposed as a parallel discovery mechanism for legal professionals. The Commission’s stance reinforces judicial concerns that indiscriminate use of RTI by advocates for client-specific disputes risks undermining the statutory scheme and diverting it from its public-centric mission.
Read More: Delhi HC Allows Income Tax Assessment to Proceed Despite Dual PAN Dispute
