Central Information Commission
Sukhwant Singh vs Punjab & Haryana High Court on 25 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/PUHHC/A/2018/113416
Sukhwant Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, High Court of Punjab & ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Haryana At Chandigarh,
Chandigarh.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.12.2017 FA : 06.01.2018 SA : 23.02.2018
CPIO : 22.12.2017 FAO : 23.01.2018 Hearing : 21.06.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, seeking to know the total number of judges against whom cases have been registered under Section 219, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the total number of such judges who have been acquitted as well as convicted since 2000 to till the date of the RTI application.
Page 1 of 42. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has not provided the information sought for on the plea that it is not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and that no such record is maintained. He contended that it is the responsibilty of the Dept. concerned to maintain such data as per Section 4 of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Sukhwant Singh and the respondent Shri Satish Kumar, Jt. Registrar (Rules) and PIO, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, Chandigarh, attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the PIO's reply to the RTI application as no information has been provided to him.
5. The respondent reiterated that the appellant has already been informed that the information sought by the appellant is hypothetical in nature and the same does not fall within the purview of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant was further informed that no such record relating to the cases registered under Section 219, Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, is maintained by the respondent authority. Hence, the question of supplying the requested information does not arise. He further clarified that Section 3 of The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 provides protection to the judges and states that "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who Page 2 of 4 is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function."
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate response has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. 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 24.06.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
3. Shri Sukhwant Singh Page 4 of 4