Central Information Commission
Mr. Abhishek Gupta vs Supreme Court Of India on 27 July, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000324/SG/13688
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000324/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. Abhishek Gupta
15, Janki Nagar Main,
Indore --452 001 (M.P.)
Respondent: (1): Ms. Smita Sharma
Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of India,
Bhagwandass Road,
New Delhi -- 110 001
(2) PIO & Dy. Secretary
Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India
Department of Justice, Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road,
New Delhi
RTI application: 12/06/2010
PIO reply: 24/06/2010 transferred to Ministry of Law & Justice
First appeal Not filed
Complaint with CIC 09/08/2010
FAA order 17/09/2010
Second appeal 02/12/2010
Information sought:
The appellant had sought information pertaining to the year 1995 when the following names had been recommended for elevation/appointment to the post of Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by the Chief Justice, Madhya Pradesh High Court and by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. i. Shri N.K. Pandey ii. Shri Shekhar Bhargava iii. Shri V,K. Agrawal iv. Shri N.K. Jam Three of the four persons named above, were soon thereafter appointed Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
2. In the context of the foregoing, the appellant requested the following information:
A. Documents relating to showing the procedure for considering the aforesaid 4 names. B. Note-sheet showing the procedure applied for considering the aforesaid 4 names. C. Documents showing/forming the basis of appointment of three of the four persons above named, D. Documents showing forming the basis of refusal of appointment of one of the four persons above named.Page 1 of 3
PIO's reply:
Transferred to Mr. S.K.Shrivastava PIO, Ministry of Law & Justice under Section 6 (3) under intimation to the appellant with the following note addressed to the appellant: (You are requested to contact the above authority for further information in the matter. Further, the information sought by you is confidential and is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and you have no right to access the said information under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Further, as the information is not held by or under the control of the CPIO. Supreme Court of India, your request cannot be acceded to under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is further informed that in SLP (Civil) No.32855 of 2009 titled Central Public information Officer & Anr, Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Record of Proceeding dated 4.12.2009 has stayed the directions of the Central Information Commission for disclosing the information relating to appointment of Hon'ble Judges and the said matter is still pending.) Grounds for First appeal:
The appellant claims he did not file a first appeal, but had only filed a complaint with CIC. His complaint stated that the PIO had while transferring the application under Section 6 (3) given a note claiming that the information cannot be given since it was exempt under Section 8 (1) (e) &(j). The PIO had imposed his decision of denying information on the PIO, Ministry of Law & Justice, rendering the Act of transferring the RTI application redundant.
FAA order:
From the nature of information sought it is seen that the information is not held by or under the authority of CPIO. It was also informed that the information sought was confidential or exempted under section 8(1)(e) and ( j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was informed that he has no right to access the information u/s 2(j). He was again informed that information relating to appointments of Hon'ble Judges have been stayed by the directions of the Hon'ble supreme Court by order in SLP 32855 of 2009. In the light of the above transfer under Section 6(3) of the Right to information Act, 2005 is correct. I find no reason to take a different view. Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Grounds for Second appeal:
(h) Respondent no.2's letter dated 24.06.2010 purporting to transfer the appellant's said application to Shri S.K. Shrivastava, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, virtually decides the appellant's RTI application for the latter and leaves nothing for him to decide.
(i) The dismissal of the appellant's application dated 12.06.2010 by the respondents, is unreasonable and without any valid basis/legal basis.
Relief Sought:
That this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents and set aside/quash the impugned order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the respondent no.1.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Gupta on video conference from NIC-Indore Studio; Respondent : Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Advocate representing Ms. Smita Sharma, Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India;
The Appellatn points out that the RTI application was transferred by the PIO of Supreme Court under Section 6(3) to the PIO of Law & Justice Department since it was claimed that the information was not available with the PIO of the Supreme Court. While transferring the RTI application the PIO of the Supreme Court ahs claimed that the information is exempt under certain provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. This was an error and would influence the PIO of the Law & Justice Department. The Commission agrees with the Appellant's contention and directs the PIO of Law & Justice Department to Page 2 of 3 deal with the RTI application on merits without being influenced by the remarks by the PIO of the Supreme Court. Whenever any PIO transfers the RTI application he should not pass any comments which might influence the PIO to whom the RTI application is being transferred.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
This order is being sent to the PIO of the Law & Justice Department who must treat the RTI application of the Appellant on merits and provide the information as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 27 July 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM) Page 3 of 3