In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that practicing lawyers cannot seek case-related information on behalf of their clients under the RTI law. The Commission said the objective of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in public institutions, not to strengthen private litigation or serve professional interests.
The order came during the hearing of a dispute involving the termination of a fruit and vegetable supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana. In the case, an advocate had filed an RTI application seeking documents from the school administration, stating that the information was being requested “on behalf of his brother,” who was the supplier involved in the contract.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
Commission questions why the actual party did not file the RTI
During the proceedings, the Commission noted that the advocate failed to explain why the concerned supplier himself could not file the RTI application. The CIC observed that the lawyer was effectively attempting to use the RTI Act as a legal tool to gather information for the client’s benefit, which falls outside the intended purpose of the law.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi, in her order, made it clear that a practicing lawyer cannot invoke RTI in matters that are directly connected with their professional engagement. She said allowing such requests would lead to widespread misuse of the transparency law and undermine its original spirit.
Reliance on Madras High Court precedent
The Commission also referred to an earlier Madras High Court judgment, which held that lawyers cannot use RTI to obtain information relating to their clients’ litigation. The High Court had warned that if advocates were permitted to file RTI pleas for their clients, it would open the floodgates for legal professionals to turn the law into a parallel discovery mechanism.
According to the High Court, such a trend would not only burden public authorities with excessive RTI requests but also risk exposing sensitive or third-party information.
RTI meant for citizens, not litigation strategy
Reiterating the core intent of the RTI Act, the Commission said the law is designed for citizens to seek transparency in governance, not for lawyers to use it as a professional instrument. The CIC stressed that RTI should not become a substitute for judicial or departmental procedures already available for obtaining records in legal disputes.
The order stated that information officers are justified in rejecting RTI applications filed by advocates on behalf of their clients, as such use amounts to misuse of the Act.
CPIO’s stand upheld
In this particular case, the public authority informed the Commission that some records had been destroyed in a fire, and the remaining documents contained third-party or confidential details. These were denied under Section 8 of the RTI Act, which provides exemptions for personal and sensitive information.
The Commission upheld the Central Public Information Officer’s (CPIO) response, saying there was no fault or deficiency in the way the request had been handled.
A step to curb misuse of RTI
Transparency and legal experts view the ruling as a major step toward preventing the misuse of RTI for private litigation. The Commission reiterated that the “noble objectives of the RTI Act cannot be diluted for personal or professional advantage.”
With this decision, lawyers will no longer be able to directly seek information under RTI for their clients’ cases. Instead, the concerned parties themselves must file applications or obtain records through appropriate legal channels.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
