NEW DELHI: In a significant order, Central Information Commission (CIC) has said advocates cannot use Right to Information (RTI) Act by filing applications to seek details regarding cases they are handling for clients, and cited a Madras high court judgment that emphasised using the law this way defeats its core objectives.The ruling came in a case where information commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi dismissed a second appeal filed by an advocate in a dispute related to the termination of a fruits-and-vegetables supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana.In the order dated Jan 12, Relangi said, “The appellant being an advocate by profession has sought the information on behalf of his brother who used to be supplier of vegetables/fruits to the respondent public authority. In the absence of any fact stated by the appellant as to why is he seeking details on behalf of his brother who can personally ask for information as a citizen, it appears that the appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se which is not permissible in view of the judgment passed by the Madras HC (Madurai bench).“She cited the relevant parts of the HC judgment where the court had noted in an RTI matter that “the first respondent dismissed the appeal on the premise that the petitioner being a practising advocate cannot seek information relating to cases instituted by him on behalf of his client. As a citizen he can personally ask for information, but not as an advocate on behalf of his client.”“The reasoning given by the first respondent cannot be faulted at all. The second appeal filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected, as otherwise, every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for getting information on behalf of his client, which situation does not advance the objects of the scheme of the RTI. Act. The laudable objects of the RTI,” it said.The court said, “the Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practise”.Relangi took the same stance in another case related to Inland Waterways Authority of India, where the appellant a lawyer had filed RTI applications and the first and second appeals on behalf of his client, contending a satisfactory response was not provided. Both the Jan 12 and Jan 14 orders – disposing of the cases – were passed by her citing the HC’s judgment.