(1.) The petitioner, a retired Class I officer and presently a practicing lawyer, made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act' for short), before the Public Information Officer, District Court, Ernakulam (herein after referred to as 'PIO') seeking copies of 'A' diary of civil and criminal postings of the cases for the period from 1/12/2021 to 14/4/2022'. The said application was rejected by the PIO by Ext.P1 letter stating that the information sought for can be obtained on submitting copy application and besides, those information is available in the website of the Court, Court notice board and in the Kiosk of the District Court. It was also informed that, the 'A' diary being part of court proceedings, the matter was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judge and the application was rejected on 18/4/2022 and it is not possible to give information in terms of Ss. 2.8(V), 3(a) and 8B (sic) of the RTI Act.
(2.) Against Ext.P1, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 19 (2) of the RTI Act before the Appellate Authority, the 2nd respondent. The Appellate Authority, by Ext.P3, rejected the appeal stating that the information sought for by the petitioner relates to judicial proceedings and the High Court as per Rule 12 of the Right to Information (Subordinate Courts and Tribunals) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule' for short) has directed all Subordinate Courts in the State that no information relating to any Judicial Proceedings shall be disclosed under the said Act. The petitioner states that he has not preferred a second appeal against Ext.P3 order.
(3.) Ext.P1 issued by the PIO and Ext.P3 order of the Appellate Authority are impugned in the writ petition. Besides, the petitioner has sought to quash Rule 12 of the Rules contending that the said provision is in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act.