Central Information Commission
P K Jain vs Supreme Court Of India on 24 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SCOFI/A/2018/631839 -BJ
Mr. P K Jain
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO and Addl. Registrar,
Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg,
Mandi House, New Delhi - 110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.07.2020
Date of Decision : 24.07.2020
Date of RTI application 13.06.2018
CPIO's response 12.07.2018
Date of the First Appeal 30.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 14.08.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Not on Record
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the certified copy of the report submitted by the Mediator Shri Manoj Jain, Advocate; certified copy of the note-sheets put up by the registry before the competent authority and details of the action taken on his petition/ complaint dated 18.09.2017 submitted before the Registrar Vigilance and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 12.07.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. The Appellant was informed that information sought for related to the judicial record of Court and can only be obtained by moving an application under Order XIII Rule 1 of Supreme Court 2013 which was available on their website. A reference was also made to Chapter XX of the Supreme Court of India: Handbook of Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017 which was also available on their website. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 14.08.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
Page 1 of 5HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. P. K. Jain through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Deepak Goel, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Agrawal, Addl. Reg. & CPIO Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate in person;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the desired information was deliberately and malafidely denied by the Respondent despite being a Public Record held and available with the Public Authority. Explaining that the mediation process was pertaining to administrative side and not part of judicial proceedings, the Appellant submitted that the mediation report ought to have been disclosed to him. Similarly, information relating to action taken on his complaint dated 18.09.2017 to the Registrar (Vig) was also not part of judicial proceedings. He also submitted that denial of information on the ground that the same could be obtained under Order XIII Rule 1 of Supreme Court 2013 was incorrect since seeking copies of report and note sheets of Registry's files was not provided under the said Rules.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that a suitable response was provided to the Appellant informing him that the details sought by him were part of the judicial record relating to Transfer Petition (Crl) No 227/2015 where the Appellant was the petitioner. During the hearing, the Respondent in support of their contention that the Appellant should follow the existing rules of the Supreme Court for obtaining the certified copies of Judicial Records referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs R.S. Misra WP (C) 3530/2011 dated 21.11.2017. In this context, the Respondent also referred to the decisions of the Commission in CIC/SCOFI/C/2018/103115 decided on 06.03.2019 and CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/145513, CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/145511 and CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/145509 decided on 14.03.2018. Reference was also made by the Respondent to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court of Gujarat and Another in Civil Appeal Nos 1966-1967 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 5840 of 2015) wherein a full bench of the Court vide judgement dated 04.03.2020 wherein the aforementioned judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in R S Misra's matter was upheld.
The Respondent also clarified that the mediation process is carried out in pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble Court therefore any decision pertaining to disclosure of information relating to such proceedings would fall on the judicial side and not the administrative side as argued by the Appellant. During the hearing, the Respondent also submitted that the action taken on Appellant's complaint dated 18.09.2017 was provided to him by the CPIO informing him that the allegations raised therein were found to be untrue. On being queried if he had sought the instant information from any judicial forum, the Appellant replied in the negative and stated that he had only approached the Commission to seek the information.
Having heard both the parties at length and on perusal of the available records, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."Page 2 of 5
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs R.S. Misra WP (C) 3530/2011 dated 21.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
Page 3 of 5"49. Since both the RTI Act, 2005 and the SCR aim at dissemination of information, there is no inherent inconsistency, other than the procedural inconsistency at the highest between the RTI Act and the SCR.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency.
73. Consequently, the SCR would be applicable with regard to the judicial functioning of the Supreme Court; whereas for the administrative functioning of the Supreme Court, the RTI Act would be applicable and information could be provided under it. The dissemination of information under the SCR is a part of judicial function, exercise of which cannot be taken away by any statute. It is settled legal position that the legislature is not competent to take away the judicial powers of the court by statutory prohibition. The legislature cannot make law to deprive the courts of their legitimate judicial functions conferred under the procedure established by law.
74. Also, the RTI Act does not provide for an appeal against a Supreme Court judgment/order that has attained finality. It is clarified that queries under the RTI Act would be maintainable to elicit information like how many leaves a Hon'ble Judge takes or with regard to administrative decision an Hon'ble Judge takes; but no query shall lie with regard to a judicial decision/function."
With regard to the information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side is to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the Supreme Court Rules and the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to, the Commission referred to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Another in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015) dated 04th March, 2020, wherein it was held that one must apply under Court Rules to get the certified copies of Court documents. The relevant Para of the observations of the Court are reiterated as under:-
"32. We fully endorse above views of the Delhi High Court. When the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing an application/affidavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted.
42. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified Page 4 of 5 copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid.
43. We summarise our conclusion:-
(i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely lays down a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) [
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 24.07.2020
Page 5 of 5