For instance, the rule immunises the High Court from making public information relating to the examinations it conducts. The concerned amendment in the RTI rules, as per notification dated April 3, 2007, says: “Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination conducted by the Gujarat High Court, including Gujarat Judicial Service and Gujarat Higher Judicial Service: The question of confidentiality shall be decided by the Competent Authority, whose decision shall be final.”

Interestingly, RTI Section 8(2) states: “Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information if public interests in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”

Or take another instance:

Section 6 (3) of the Act says: “Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:”

Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2005 in its Section 4 (1) says “If the requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the authorised person, it shall order return of the application to the applicant in Form C as soon as practicable, normally within fifteen days and in any case not later than thirty days from the date or receipt of the application, advising the applicant wherever possible about the authority concern to whom the application be made. The application fee deposited in such cases shall not be refunded.”

Eminent lawyer of the Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan said not only in Gujarat, many other high courts across the country have been framing rules which contradict the act itself.

“In many High Courts, even Public Information Officers are not appointed,” he added.

“No rule can contradict the act itself, for which it is made,” said noted activist and senior lawyer Girish Patel. “But the larger question remains why is judiciary immune from disclosure of information?” he said. “Excepting information pertaining to judicial duties and decisions, no information should be withheld from the people,” Patel said.

The people, he however added, even have a right to know how the judges are being selected and appointed. “Right now, the judicial system is very opaque and in the larger public interest of transparency, such information need to be made accessible,” he added.