Home  /  Right to Information Act, 2005  /  Section 28

Section 28: Power to make rules by competent authority

Right to Information Act, 2005 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2005
Section 27 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 29

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 28

Section 28 empowers competent authorities—including the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justices of High Courts, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and presiding officers of legislatures—to frame specialized rules for their respective constitutional institutions, subject to the overarching supremacy of the parent Act.

  • Autonomous Rule-Making for Constitutional Organs under Section 28(1): A competent authority (defined under Section 2(e) as the Speaker, Chairman, CJI, Chief Justice of a High Court, or President/Governor for Union/State territories) may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act within its constitutional sphere.
  • Scope of Competent Authority Rules under Section 28(2): Encompasses prescribing fees payable under Section 6(1) and Section 7, inspection formats, and internal procedural guidelines for receiving and processing information requests within courts and legislatures.
  • Constitutional Limits and Harmonization with Section 22: Rules framed by competent authorities must conform to the RTI Act; where competent authority rules conflict with the substantive provisions or non-obstante mandate of Section 22, the statutory provisions of the RTI Act prevail.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481: The 5-Judge Constitution Bench held that rules framed by the Chief Justice of India under Section 28 must be harmonized with the parent provisions of the RTI Act; where rules conflict with the substantive mandate of Section 22, the statutory provisions prevail.
  • Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat (2020) 4 SCC 702: A 3-Judge Bench held that where High Court Rules framed under Section 28 and Article 225 provide a specific, structured mechanism for third parties to obtain certified copies of judicial proceedings upon filing an affidavit disclosing bona fide grounds, that special rule mechanism takes precedence over the general RTI mechanism.
  • Common Cause v. High Court of Allahabad (2018) 14 SCC 344: The Supreme Court struck down rules framed by the Allahabad High Court under Section 28 charging Rs. 500 per application and Rs. 15 per page, holding that competent authority rules cannot impose unreasonable or prohibitive financial impediments.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When seeking certified copies of pleadings, evidence, or judgments from a High Court or subordinate courts, examine whether the relevant High Court has framed specific rules under Section 28 or Article 225. Under Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat, if the court rules provide a specific procedure for third-party copy issuance, applicants must follow that court-rule route rather than invoking the general RTI mechanism. However, for administrative records of the judiciary (tenders, recruitment, collegium data), the RTI Act and Section 28 rules apply directly.

Section 27 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 29