publication of Rules framed by the respondents

1 The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks publication of  Rules framed by the respondents under Sec.33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Police Act”). The petitioner further seeks publication and online access to all the Rules, Regulations, Instructions, Manuals and Records held by the respondent No.1 or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions. It is the case of the petitioner that failure to publish such rules amounts to illegality of the executive action violation of democracy rule of law and natural justice and infringement of rights of the petitioner of free speech and expression and assembly enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution and Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. 

2 Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 On 12.12.2019, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, was assented to by the President and published for general information in the official gazette. Some of the residents of Ahmedabad willing to express their opinion on this amendment, wished to express the same in peaceful manner. The petitioner, wanting to peacefully assemble sought permission for assembly and peaceful protest on 29.12.2019 between 5 p.m to 7 p.m on foothpath of road adjacent to Kanoria Centre for Arts & Gufa of Ahmedabad. The information was sought from the Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station, vide letter dated 25.12.2019. On 28.12.2019, vide “Samaj Yadi” the petitioner was informed that the permission for such assembly and peaceful protest is not allowed and is rejected on the grounds of situation of law and order as well as problem of traffic. The petitioner in violation of the order did hold an assembly and was detained for a few hours.

2.2 With a view to know the Rules under which the permission of the petitioner was processed, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent No.1, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, asking for the copy of the complete rules framed under Sec.33 (1) (o) of the Police Act and secondly if a request was rejected, whether it was so  done under any of the rules or regulations. On 06.03.2020, the petitioner received a reply that her request for information sought is refused. The refusal of information and the action of the respondent No.1 in doing so is challenged on the ground of it being grossly bad, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, Rule of Law & Democracy.

 3.2 Reading sec.4(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, Mr.Soparkar, learned counsel, would submit that this provision casts an obligation on the public authority to proactively publish 17 kinds of information including the procedure followed in the decision making process, the norms set by it for discharge of its functions and the rules and regulations under control or used by its employees for discharging its functions. He would therefore submit that not publishing and proactively disclosing the rules and orders framed under Sec.33(1) of the Police Act are in violation of Sec.33(6) of the Police Act as well as sec.4 of the Right to Information Act. 3.3 If the website and the RTI booklet is accessed, some of the information is classified as “for department use only”. Even the screenshot of the website would indicate that only for example the Acts under which the police Page 5 of 31 C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023 authorities are required to act, the names thereof are displayed on the website without the actual document being so made available. He would submit that the necessity of publication of law is a part of the rules of natural justice and the petitioner is entitled to know the laws of the land. 3.4 The enforcement of the RTI Act has been repeatedly emphasized as being one in which the peoples Right To Information is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of speech. He would rely on several decisions which declare that transparency is the key for functioning of a healthy democracy. In support of his submission, Shri Soparkar, learned counsel, would rely on the following decisions. (I) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain, reported in AIR 1975 SC 865. (ii) S.P.Gupta Vs. President of India & Ors, reported in AIR 1982 SC 149. (iii) Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspaper Bombay Pvt Ltd & Ors., Page 6 of 31 C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023 reported in AIR 1989 SC 190. (iv) Union of India & Anr vs. Association of Democratic Reforms, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2112. 3.5 By reading the very preamble of the Act, what is evident is that the Right to Information Act was enacted with the spirit that the democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to be governed. In support of his submission, Mr.Soparkar, learned counsel, would rely on the decision in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry, reported in 2016 (3) SCC 525. 3.6 When information was sought for, it is denied on the ground that in accordance with the Notification dated 25.10.2005, the Special Branch which decides the procedure of assemblies and processions is exempted from such disclosure in accordance with powers under Sec.24 of the Right to Information Act. He would submit Page 7 of 31 C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023 that such exemption is not germane to the disclosure of such information in view of the fact that the procedure may be the application for permission that may be processed by the authorities in tandem with the special branch which itself does not prohibit publication of information.

Page 1 of 31 C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Page 2 of 31 C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023 

Page 3 of 31 C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

5 In rejoinder, Mr.Soparkar, learned counsel, would submit that essentially what the petitioner wants to know is what the law of the land is in context of the rules which permit a petitioner to peacefully demonstrate and the petitioner is entitled to know such rules. That such rules are framed under Sec.33 of the Act is evident in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himmat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of Police, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 227 which, declared Rule 7 of the rules framed under Sec.33 as void. What is also evident from the decision in the case of Gujarat Majdoor Panchayat vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., Page 12 of 31 C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023 reported in 1988 (2) GLR 1005, that there are regulations for conduct of assembly and processions which were framed by the Police Commissionerate of Ahmedabad in the year 1975. 5.1 Mr.Soparkar, learned counsel, would therefore submit that rules are framed under Sec.33. The authority respondent No.1 is admittedly a public authority under Sec.2(h) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to know such rules. There is violation of natural justice in view of the fact that the petitioner is entitled to know all the rules and regulations and as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497, that the information can be divided into three categories, one which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and in regard to the information falling under such category, there is a special responsibility on the public authorities to publish and disseminate such Page 13 of 31 C/SCA/11826/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023 information. Even in light of the decision in the case of State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors., reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220, the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus in light of the refusal to provide such information.