The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that advocates cannot use the Freedom of Information (RTI) Act to seek details of cases they are handling on behalf of their clients, saying that using transparency laws in this way fails to achieve their core purpose.

Dismissing the second appeal filed by counsel in a dispute related to termination of contract for supply of fruits and vegetables at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Lilangi noted that the appellants had sought information “on behalf of their brothers who were suppliers of vegetables and fruits to the respondent public sector bodies”.

The commission said: “It appears that the appellant asked for information on behalf of the customer himself, and this is inadmissible,” without any explanation as to why the supplier himself could not have asked for the information.

Citing an order of the Madras High Court, the CIC emphasized that “no person acting as a lawyer may seek information in respect of a case initiated by him on behalf of his client”.

The High Court warned that otherwise “any lawyer would be invoking the provisions of the RTI Act to obtain information on behalf of his client”, which “does not further the purpose of the RTI Act”.

The committee further cited the judgment and stressed that “the laudable objectives of the RTI Act cannot be used for personal purposes and should not become a vehicle for advocates to seek information of any kind to further their own practices.”

The CIC noted that the public authorities’ claims that some records were destroyed in the fire and that personal information was legitimately denied under the exceptions, said: “There were no deficiencies in the responses submitted by the CPIO.”

The appeal was disposed of accordingly and a copy of the written submissions was directed to be shared with the appellant.