Consumer Protection Act Regulations Do Not Explicitly Restrict Third-Party Access; RTI Act Serves As The Legislative Bridge: Delhi HC

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while relying on Central Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat (2020), has held, “The interpretation of the CPA Regulations must align with the overarching goal of the RTI Act to enhance transparency and access to information. In the Court’s opinion, the Regulation 21 which details the processes for parties directly involved in cases to obtain certified copies does not explicitly restrict third-party access. This absence of specific prohibition should not be misconstrued as an implicit restriction but rather recognized as a gap in the regulatory framework. This regulatory gap necessitates the application of RTI Act for access to information. Since the CPA Regulations do not provide for or explicitly restrict third-party access, the RTI Act serves as the legislative bridge.”

Advocate Vidur Mohan for the Petitioner while Advocate Gautam Narayan appeared for the Respondent.

The Petitioner- Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, filed a petition impugning the order of the Chief Information Commissioner (‘CIC’) which allowed the appeal of the Respondent and directed the Petitioner to provide detailed and specific information as sought in the RTI application filed under the RTI Act.

Respondent sought, via RTI Application, copies of a Consumer Complaint along with interlocutory applications and the written statement filed in the case. The CPIO declined to provide the requested documents based on Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. According to the CPIO, only parties involved in the matter were entitled to the documents, judgments, or orders related to the case. The Respondent preferred an appeal before the CIC wherein he succeeded, hence the present petition.

The case involved an interplay between the RTI Act 2005 and the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 framed under Section 30A of the Consumer Protection Act. The core issue was whether the regulatory framework under the Consumer Protection Act adequately addresses the rights of third parties to access information.

The Court observed, “Thus, this Court cannot interpret Regulations 21 and 22 obstructing a third party from obtaining copies of documents on the judicial side. The procedural rules of the Supreme Court which have been noticed and discussed in CIC v. High Court of Gujarat, itself enable third parties to apply for copies in pending or disposed of matters on showing ‘good cause’. Thus, Regulation 21 does not apply to third parties and there is a regulatory gap as the CPA Regulations are silent on this aspect. Hence, Mr. A.K. Jain could in the opinion of the Court, resort to the provisions of the RTI Act. He had every right to the seek information under the RTI Act, subject to limitations prescribed under the Act since the information could not have accessed through the mechanism provided under the Regulations.”

However, the Court said that the Respondent’s status did not inherently entitle him to access or obtain certified copies of documents from NCDRC proceedings. His right to access is contingent upon the regulatory framework under the CPA Regulations because of the void and under the RTI Act which fills the regulatory gaps. The Court further said that to maintain confidentiality and to manage the potential for overwhelming and inappropriate requests that may inundate NCDRC if complete free unrestricted access is given to third parties, it is prudent for this Court to mandate that any third party, submit a detailed application or affidavit when requesting information or certified copies showing good cause to receive such material.

Therefore, the Court remanded the matter back to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the NCDRC. The CPIO was directed to reassess the Respondent’s request upon receipt of his affidavit, balancing the need for transparency with the privacy rights of the individuals involved. The decision to disclose or withhold information should be made judiciously, considering the stipulations of Section 8 of the RTI Act, which outlines specific grounds for non-disclosure, the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: The Central Public Information Officer v. AK Jain (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6036)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Vidur Mohan, Kaushal Kumar Singh and Shefali Munde.

Respondent: Advocates Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, K.V. Prasad and Anirudh Anand

Click here to read/download the Judgment