Central Information Commission
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs Department Of Justice on 24 June, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/JUSTC/A/2018/152694
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, Ministry of Law & ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Justice, Dept. of Justice (AU),
New Delhi.
2. CPIO, Ministry of Law &
Justice, Dept. of Justice (D-I),
New Delhi.
3. CPIO, Ministry of Law &
Justice, Dept. of Justice (D-II),
New Delhi.
4. CPIO, Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.02.2018 FA : 26.05.2018 SA : 19.08.2018
CPIO : 28.03.2018 (RTI
FAO : No Order Hearing : 13.06.2019
Transfer)
Page 1 of 10
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Law & Justice, Dept. of Justice, New Delhi seeking information on two points, including, inter-alia, (i) a copy of Supreme Court Rules 2013; a copy of the Rules to regulate proceedings of Contempt of Supreme Court 1975, and (ii) copies of all the notifications issued regarding appointment of High Court Judges since 2001 to till the date of the RTI application.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO (AU), Dept. of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice vide letter dated 28.03.2017 transferred his RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO (D-I) and CPIO (D-II), Dept. of Justice, for necessary action, however, no reply/information has been furnished to him till date by the CPIO concerned. Further, the FAA, Dept. of Justice also did not adjudicate upon his appeal. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to impose penalties upon the CPIOs concerned for not providing the requested information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Shri Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent Shri S. Vijay Gopal, CPIO (D-II) and Under Secretary, Dept. of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi and Page 2 of 10 Shri Ajay Agrawal, Addl. Registrar/CPIO, Supreme Court of India and Shri Sanjiv Das, Advocate for the respondent, were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that though he has received a reply form the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi on point no. 3(iii)(a) [1 to 4] of his RTI application, he has not been provided hard copies of the Supreme Court Rules, Rules for contempt of Supreme Court, etc., as sought by him vide point no.
3(iii)(a) [1 to 4] of the RTI application. Further, the CPIO (D-II), Dept. of Justice to whom his RTI application was transferred has also not provided any reply/information in respect of point no. 3(iii)(b) of his RTI application. The appellant submitted that being a prisoner, he does not have access to the internet, hence, as per Section 7(5) of the RTI Act he should be provided the hard copies of the documents/Rules, free of cost. The appellant also cited the Commission's decision dated 06.06.2013 in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2010/001130 wherein CIC had directed the public authority to provide the information sought by the appellant, free of cost, owing to his submission that he is confined in jail and is not allowed to access internet.
5. The respondent, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi submitted that the appellant has been already informed vide reply dated 12.01.2018 that the information sought vide point no. 3(iii)(a) [1 to 3] of his RTI application regarding the Supreme Court Rules 2013 including, the Regulations regarding Advocate-on- Record examination and Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court, 1975 is available on the website of the public authority. Further, a copy of the Rules which have been published can also be purchased from the market on Page 3 of 10 payment of fixed price. The respondent also cited the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in judgment dated 01.06.2012 in Registrar of Companies & Ors vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Ors [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] wherein the Court had observed:
"Section 2(j) of the RTI Act speaks of "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority. ... This should mean that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act."
6. Hence, in view of the above decision which has also been subsequently followed by the Commission in its decision dated 13.10.2017 (Appeal No. CIC/NIOFS/A/2017/187432/MP), the CPIO is not bound to provide the hard copies of the Rules which is already available in public domain by means of a priced publication.
7. The respondent, Ministry of Law and Justice submitted that in a letter dated 08.02.2018, in response to another RTI application filed by the appellant wherein similar information had been sought by him regarding appointment of Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts, a copy of the memorandum showing the Page 4 of 10 procedure for appointment of Chief Justice of India and Judges of Supreme Court as well as the procedure for appointment and transfer of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts. However, with respect to the notifications issued since 2001 for appointment of Judges of High Courts, the respondent clarified that the information sought is not specific and hence, voluminous as 1512 judges have been appointed in High Courts from 2001 till date, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Further, it is not readily available at one place or in one file with the Ministry. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Moreover, individual notifications for appointment of Judges are being uploaded on the website of Dept. of Justice from February 2013 onwards which can be accessed at doj.gov.in.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Registrar of Companies & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Ors. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] had observed:
"10. It is significant that the direction regarding dissemination of information through free or priced documents, or free or priced access to information stored on internet, electronic means, or held manually; free or on payment of predetermined cost for inspection of such documents or records held by public authorities, appear in a chapter on "obligations of public authorities". The inference from these sections is a) it is the Page 5 of 10 obligation of the public authorities to voluntarily disseminate information so that "the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information", b) once an information is voluntarily disseminated it is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act and, to that extant, contributes to minimizing the resort to the use of this Act, c) there is no obligation cast on the public authority to disseminate all such information free of cost. The Act authorizes the public authorities to disclose such information suo-motu "at such cost of a medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed", d) the RTI Act authorizes the public authority to price access to the information which it places in the public domain suo-motu.
11. These provisions are in consonance with the wording of the Section 2(j) which clearly demarcates the boundary between an information held or under the control of the public authority and, an information not so held, or under the control of that public authority who suo-motu places that information in public domain. It is only the former which shall be "accessible under this Act" ― viz. the RTI Act and, not the latter. This latter category of information forms the burden of sub-section 2, 3 and 4 of Section 4 of this Act."
9. The Commission also notes that the Commission vide decision dated 02.07.2012 in File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001713/BS & CIC/SM/A/2012/000239/ BS/0284 had observed as under:
Page 6 of 10"(8) This ratio can also be culled out from Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/000961-SM dated 26.09.2007 wherein it was inter alia held by this Commission:
"it is indeed true as contended by the respondent, that the appellant had asked for number of information which was already available in public domain either by way of priced publication sold through book stores or already placed in the internet/website of the air force. Any information already available in public domain need not be provided by the CPIO".
(9) It is apparent from the foregoing observations of the Hon'ble High Court Delhi and the decisions of this Commission cited above that once an information is brought into the public domain by means of a priced publication, the said information cannot be said to be "held by" or "under the control of" the CPIO and hence would cease to be information accessible under the RTI Act.
(10) In the instant case, information is available without the need for a request as these are priced publications. Therefore, to cast an obligation on the public authority to provide copies of the same under the RTI Act will not only be onerous but may also violate the Copyrights Act and may not be saved even under Section 9 of the Act as copyright may subsist in a person other than the State.
(11) Further presuming, though not admitting, that the information seeker falls under the BPL category for the appeal at hand still the information Page 7 of 10 cannot be supplied to him free of cost under proviso to Section 7(5) of the RTI Act as the information is not held by the CPIO and access to this category of information viz. priced publication(s) shall be on the basis of payment of such costs as may be prescribed for the purpose."
10. In view of the above, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply has been furnished to the appellant by the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi in respect of point no. 3(iii)(a) of his RTI application. However, in view of the appellant's submissions that he is in jail where he has no access to the internet, the Commission directs the Jail Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur to facilitate downloading of copies of Acts/Rules as sought vide point no. 3(iii)(a) of the RTI application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
11. The Commission further observes that as per the respondent, Ministry of Law and Justice (D-II), the information sought vide point no. 3(iii)(b) of the RTI application is not specific and hence, voluminous as 1512 judges have been appointed in High Courts from 2001 till date. He, however, stated that the information can be provided to the appellant in case he specifies particular High Court(s) in respect of which the notification has been issued for appointment of judges. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide copies of notifications issued for appointment of Judges of High Courts from 2013 onwards to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of specific names of the High Court(s) from the latter.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 8 of 1013. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 13.06.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Copy to: The Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Wardha Road, Jawaharlal Marg, Nagpur- 440020, for necessary information.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Department of Justice (AU), Ministry of Law & Justice, Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, New Delhi- 110011.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Justice (AU), Ministry of Law & Justice, Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, New Delhi- 110011.
3. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Justice (D-I), Ministry of Law & Justice, Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, New Delhi- 110011.Page 9 of 10
4. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Justice (D-II), Ministry of Law & Justice, Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, New Delhi- 110011.
5. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi- 110001.
6. Shri Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui Page 10 of 10