Central Information Commission
Veergundayys Swamy Hiremath vs Supreme Court Of India on 30 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
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/SCOFI/A/2023/124561
Shri Veergundayys Swamy Hiremath ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Supreme Court of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.08.2024
Date of Decision : 28.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.02.2023
PIO replied on : 20.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 27.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 02.05.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 29.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"S.LP (Civil) 8519/2006 Union of India VS State of Gujrat Please provide the certified copies in 2 sets as following:
1) Petition Copy with affidavit
2) Complete Order Sheet
3) Final Judgment
4) Chief Secretary Karnataka State filed all applications with affidavits, documents, notifications, comprehensive reports, all interim orders and Final Judgment copy.
5) Chief Secretary of Bihar State filed all applications with affidavits, documents, notifications, comprehensive reports, all interim orders and Final Judgment copy."
The CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.03.2023 replied as under:-
"Information or copies/certified copies of the judicial record/Judgments/Orders as available on record, can only be obtained by moving an application under Order XIII, of Supreme Court Rules 2013, and other relevant provisions of the said Rules. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 are available on the Supreme Court website viz. www.sci.gov.in and can be accessed/downloaded therefrom. Further you may refer to Chapter XX of Supreme Court of India: Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017 which is available on website viz. www.sci.gov.in under the Page 1 of 3 link "Practice & Procedure". Further, you may, if so advised, refer to Central Information Commission decision in Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2018/631839-BJ dated 24/07/2020 available on the website of the Commission viz. www.cic.gov.in wherein it has been upheld that the information/copies of judicial record can only be accessed through respective Court Rules.
Further, an appropriate reply was already sent to you by Copying Section of this Registry vide letter No. 53-RTI/Copying/2023 dated 03/03/2023 (copy enclosed). No further information in this regard on the part of CPIO, Supreme Court of India, is called for."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 02.05.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Smt. Himani Sood - CPIO with Shri Adarsh Kumar Pandey - Advocate were present during hearing.
Both parties are present for the hearing and reiterated their respective contentions as already noted above. The Appellant claimed that information sought by him in this case should have been provided since he is citizen of this country and has the right to obtain information under the RTI Act. The Respondent stated that appropriate response was duly furnished to the Appellant, by the PIO's letter dated 20.03.2023 apart from the communication dated 03.03.2023 sent by the Copying Section of this Registry.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties present for hearing, it is noted that since alternate efficacious remedy of obtaining judicial records is available, the response of the PIO is legally appropriate.
It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Another in (Civil Appeal No(S).1966-1967/2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015) vide its judgment dated 4th March, 2020 held as under:
43. ...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 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.Page 2 of 3
44. We summarise our conclusion:--
............ (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.
In the light of the above decisions, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the PIO's response and copies of documents on the judicial side should be obtained through the mechanism provided under the relevant Court Rules and the provisions of the RTI Act need not be resorted to. Since appropriate response has already been disseminated to the Appellant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)