Kerala High Court Strikes Down 20-Page Cap On Free RTI Information For Below Poverty Line Applicants As Ultra Vires RTI Act

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. found that the proviso to the afore Rule, requiring payment for information above 20 pages, traverse beyond the scope of the parent Act, i.e., the Right to Information Act, 2005 since no such cap is sought to be made on the free information by its provisions.

“I have no hesitation in holding that the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, travels beyond the scope of the rule-making power under Section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is inconsistent with Section 7(5) of the Act, and also defeats the substantive provision of Rule 4(4) itself. The said proviso is therefore ultra vires the parent statute and is liable to be declared illegal and void. Accordingly, the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, restricting free supply of information to persons below the poverty line to twenty pages, is struck down as ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005,” the Court observed.

The Court was considering a writ petition filed by Nishad Shobanan, an RTI activist and member of Bodhi Vivaravakasa Samrakshana Sena challenging the Rule.

The petitioner, a person belong to the BPL category himself, had submitted an RTI application seeking information from the Co-operative Registrar regarding audit reports and other details of Puthenvelikkara Service Co-operative Bank and Elanthikkara Women Co-operative Sangham.

In response to the application, a letter was issued directing him to pay Rs. 30 for certain copies. Aggrieved, he has come before the High Court.

He pointed out that Kerala Rules, being a delegated legislation, must be consistent with the parent Act. It was argued that Section 7(5) of the RTI Act mandates that information must be supplied free of cost to persons belonging to BPL category.

Responding to the plea, the State government contended that the requirement of payment of fee for information beyond 20 pages was inserted based on Kerala State Information Commission's opinion that certain applicants engage persons in BPL category to get free information after determining the availability of information and costs involved. It was to overcome this that the proviso was added, it was stated.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that it must consider the nature, object and scheme of the parent statute as well as the scope of the delegation while examining the validity of a subordinate/delegated legislation.

It also referred to the doctrine of ultra vires, which states that the delegated authority does not have inherent legislative powers, and therefore, it must operate within the confines of the authority provided in the parent legislation.

Keeping these principles in mind, the Court examined the proviso to Rule 4(4) in the light of Section 7(5) of the RTI Act. It then reasoned:

“Section 7(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in clear, categorical and imperative terms, mandates that “no fee shall be charged from the persons who are below the poverty line”. The provision is unqualified, admits of no exception, and leaves no discretion with either the rule-making authority or the information officer. This statutory mandate stands fully incorporated in Rule 4(4) of the Kerala RTI Rules, 2006, which exempts BPL applicants from payment of fee. Once the legislature has consciously granted a complete exemption, the delegate cannot, by inserting a proviso, dilute, restrict or neutralise that exemption. The proviso limiting free supply to twenty pages is therefore not a case of alleged inconsistency with the abstract object or scheme of the Act, but one of direct conflict with an express and mandatory statutory command, rendering the rule vulnerable on the touchstone of ultra vires.”

Finding the proviso to be contrary to the substantive part of the rule and directly in conflict with the parent statute, the Court opined that it cannot be sustained. It thus struck down the proviso, allowing the plea.

Case No: WP(C) No. 3530 of 2024

Case Title: Nishad Shobanan v. The Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355

Counsel for the petitioner: T.U. Sujith Kumar

Counsel for the respondents: O.M. Shalina – Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), Devishri R. – government pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment