The Kerala High Court has delivered a decisive affirmation of the right to information as a fundamental tool of democratic accountability, striking down a state rule that imposed a 20-page cap on free information for persons below the poverty line. The judgment reaffirms that statutory exemptions granted by Parliament cannot be diluted by subordinate legislation, even in the name of preventing misuse.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, an RTI activist belonging to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category, sought audit reports and financial records from two cooperative banks under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In response, the public authority issued a letter directing him to pay Rs. 30 for copies, citing Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006. This rule, as amended in 2015, exempted BPL applicants from fees but restricted free supply to 20 pages only. The petitioner challenged this restriction as inconsistent with the parent Act.
Procedural History
- October 2023: Petitioner submitted RTI application and received response imposing fee under Rule 4(4) proviso
- December 2023: Writ petition filed in Kerala High Court challenging the validity of the proviso
- February 2026: Court heard arguments from petitioner’s counsel and state respondents
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a declaration that the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala RTI Rules is ultra vires the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore void. He also sought directions to the state to cease enforcing the 20-page cap on free information for BPL applicants.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which mandates that "no fee shall be charged from persons who are below the poverty line," permits a state government to impose a quantitative restriction - such as a 20-page cap - on the free supply of information, thereby effectively imposing a financial burden beyond that limit.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the unqualified language of Section 7(5), arguing that it grants an absolute exemption from fees without any condition or cap. He cited Union of India v. S. Srinivasan, Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, and General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav to establish that delegated legislation cannot override or dilute a mandatory statutory provision. He further contended that the proviso to Rule 4(4) effectively nullifies the exemption by imposing a cost barrier after 20 pages, violating the principle that a proviso cannot supplant the main provision.
For the Respondent
The State of Kerala argued that the proviso was introduced to prevent misuse, citing instances where applicants used BPL status as a proxy to evade fees. It referenced the Gujarat High Court’s observations and the Kerala State Information Commission’s recommendation. The Union of India, while not opposing the petitioner’s core argument, contended it was not a necessary party since the rule was framed by the State Government under its rule-making power under Section 27.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the relationship between the parent Act and subordinate legislation. It emphasized that Section 7(5) uses clear, categorical, and imperative language: "no fee shall be charged." This is not a discretionary provision but a mandatory statutory command. The Court held that the rule-making power under Section 27 is supplemental, not substitutive, and cannot be used to introduce conditions not contemplated by Parliament.
"The provision is unqualified, admits of no exception, and leaves no discretion with either the rule-making authority or the information officer."
The Court rejected the argument that the proviso merely "qualifies" the exemption. It cited Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer and S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman to affirm that a proviso cannot be construed to destroy, nullify, or enlarge the scope of the main provision. The 20-page cap, by requiring payment for additional pages, transforms the exemption into a conditional benefit, thereby defeating the legislative intent.
The Court further noted that administrative convenience or fear of misuse cannot justify curtailing a statutory right. It referenced the Telangana High Court’s decision in Busa Nikhil, where similar restrictions were struck down. The judgment underscored that the RTI Act is designed to empower citizens, promote transparency, and contain corruption - objectives that are undermined when access is made contingent on arbitrary page limits.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala RTI Rules, 2006, is ultra vires Section 7(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, and is declared void. The 20-page cap on free information for persons below the poverty line is struck down as an impermissible restriction on a statutory right.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Free Access Cannot Be Conditional
- Practitioners must now challenge any state RTI rules that impose page limits, quantity caps, or other conditions on fee exemptions for BPL applicants
- Public authorities must provide unlimited free copies to BPL persons without demanding payment for additional pages
- Any administrative guideline or circular imposing such restrictions is now legally untenable
Delegated Legislation Must Yield to Statutory Mandate
- State governments cannot use rule-making powers to introduce substantive restrictions absent in the parent Act
- Courts will apply strict scrutiny to any subordinate legislation that modifies a mandatory statutory exemption
- The doctrine of ultra vires is a powerful tool to invalidate rules that dilute citizen rights under transparency laws
Misuse Concerns Do Not Override Legislative Intent
- Fear of abuse cannot justify watering down statutory rights
- Administrative remedies such as penalties for false BPL declarations remain available
- The burden of proving misuse lies with the state, not on the applicant to justify their need for information
