Central Information Commission
Mr.V M Elangovan vs Supreme Court Of India on 30 November, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000775
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 30 November 2012
Date of decision : 30 November 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri V M Elangovan,
S/o. Shri V Murgan,
Life Convict No. 14485,
Central Prison, Cuddalor - 4,
Tamilnadu.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Smt. Smita Vats Sharma, CPIO
(ii) Shri Ariit Prasad, Advocate
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Cuddalore studio of the NIC while the Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard both their submissions.
3. It appears that the Appellant had been convicted in a criminal case. He had approached the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court and the lower courts and the Supreme Court had dismissed his SLP, Review and Curative petitions. Thereafter, in his RTI application, he had sought the CIC/SM/A/2012/000775 assistance of the CPIO to bring up the matter again through a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court as he believed that he was wrongfully convicted. The CPIO had observed in her reply that she could not provide any opinion on such matters and that the request would not be covered under the definition of information given in section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had, while upholding the stand taken by the CPIO, desired that a copy of his order should be forwarded to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee so that they could consider if any legal assistance can be provided in the case. Following this, the order and the other papers had been sent to the said Committee which, it seems, informed the Appellant that they could not provide any further assistance in the matter since both his Review and Curative petitions had been already dismissed.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that since he was a prisoner and considered himself to be innocent, he wanted assistance in the matter and desired that his case should be again heard by the Supreme Court. The Respondents pointed out that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the CPIO could not offer any assistance by way of giving an opinion or advice. All that the Appellant can do is either to approach a lawyer or go back to the respective Legal Services Committee for seeking appropriate legal assistance to take up the matter again before any court, including the Supreme Court. Other than that, the CPIO cannot provide any other information.
5. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/SM/A/2012/000775 (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000775