Central Information Commission
Mr.Ashish Kumar Paul vs Supreme Court Of India on 29 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000112 dated 18-2-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Ashish Kumar Paul
Respondent: Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Decision announced 29.4.'10
FACTS
By an application of 21-7-2008 Shri A. K. Paul of Pandav Nagar, Delhi applied to the CPIO Supreme Court of India seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly available to a prisoner as & when Jail Administration does not compile law conferred in 383 CrPC read with Delhi Jail Manual to forward the application (petition/ Bail to the learned Registrar General of Apex Court, letters to the CJI, Appeals under Mercy Jurisdiction except merely letters to the SCLSC which does not solve the process. Is it possible to issue direction to the D.G. PHQ in the interest of large number of needy & poor inmates, specially convict design Jail No. 2, Tihar- 110064?
2. Remedy available to a poor prisoner & poverty indulged family members as & when DLSA assigned Jail- 2 visiting advocates Shri Anish Dhingra & Shri Piyush Mittal initiated mal Practise with temp mind by breaking terms of DLSA for drafting & argument fees Rs. 5000/- to 10,000/- for any writ petition before High Court & Supreme Court and complaints are being hush-up in polishing & eye washing manner by consultant Shri P. C. Ranga & Member Secretary. Is this Hon'ble Court has solution by taking appropriate action & issuing discretion to the concern authority like executive Chairmen at Delhi High Court etc.
3. Is there any provision or rules of this Apex Court or on the ground of humanity to direct the National/ Supreme Court Legal Services committee for appointment of an experienced Council to visit Central jail No. 2 once in a month or weekly for counselling/ drafting of SLP, Review, Curative, Probation of offend Act, Mercy Jurisdiction & appeal under extra ordinary jurisdiction in the interest of justice for large number of extremely needy, helpless and poor prisoner of Central Jail No. 2.
4. Remedy available to a prisoner as and when Hon'ble Delhi High Court has not heard anything and forgotten their duty u/s 483 CrPC from the applicant & Ministry of Law & Justice vide their reference No.L15012/8/2008-Jus (copies are enclosed and mark as A & B respectively).1
5. Remedy available to a prisoner to remain outside peace full without disturbance of fake complaint of evil designed and corrupt Police Officials, harassment after substantiated a case FIR No. RC55A/96 u/s 7 PCA Act P. S. CBI against their Public Prosecutor.
6. Status of application filed by this applicant through Central Jail No. 2 vide their reference F-2/SCJ-2/CJ-2/AS (CT)/2007/8870 on 30th November, 2007. Copy enclosed as marked 'C'.
7. Remedy available to a prisoner if Chief Secretary, govt of NCT of Delhi does not compile the order of Ministry of Home Affairs vide their Ref. No. 20011/3/2008/Coord II consequently an insult of Presidential Secretariat correspondence No. 8 (59)/ 2008- P (1) 2 no relief to the applicant, if it possible to issue direction to the appropriate authority to erase this most indiscipline and disorder? Copy enclosed as marked 'D' a case of major breakdown in main pillars of Constitution of India.' To this Shri A. K. Paul received a response dated 1-8-2008 providing information with regard to point No. 6 and refusing the rest as follows:
"Points 1 to 5 & 7: This is to inform you that it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of duties of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to interpret the law, opine, comment and advice on matters. Your request for legal opinion and advice on your questions is not covered under sections 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Point 6: Your letter-petition dated 30.11.2007 was diarised in PIL Section against Dy. No. 13425/2007 and was lodged vide orders dated 20.12.2007 of learned Registrar (J)."
This matter after going through an appeal and an order of 11.9.2008 from Shri M. P. Bhadran, Appellate Authority in appeal No. 88/2008 of 11.9.2008 has come before us in second appeal in which Shri Ashish Kumar Paul has prayed as follows:-
"It is prayed with folded hand to this Hon'ble Commission to issue appropriate direction of the concerned authority so that an exemplary judgment can be pass in the interest of justice to large number of public & RTI Act, 2005.' This appeal is grounded on the following contention:-
"Because the information asked is comes under their current practise of presiding officers in the seat of holy Court and the public is entitled to know whether it is malpractice, tempt mind or law is properly being followed as inacted (sic) by the legislator since 150 years back hence they cannot say information/ 2 comment/ legal opinion under section 383/483 Cr.PC is beyond the scope under this Act.
Moreover the other Govt. organization never respond such manner as per copy of information under section 7 is here attached wherein Central Forensic laboratory, Chandigarh has supplied appropriate information and disclosed their technical practice/ way of working, way of examination etc to the general public.' The appeal was heard with arrangement for videoconference on 29-4- 2010. The following are present.
Respondent Shri Rajpal Arora, Addl. Registrar, CPIO, Supreme Court of India Shri Dev Dutt Kamat, Advocate, Supreme Court of India Learned Counsel for respondent Shri Dev Dutt Kamat, Advocate submitted his Vakalatnama which has been placed on file. Appellant Shri A. K. Paul had earlier submitted that he will not be in Delhi on the date of hearing and may be allowed to be heard on telephone No. 09233846111. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that this matter stands already disposed of under appeal no. CIC/WB/C/2008/00873 on which a decision was announced on 10-8-09. We have accordingly examined our decision of 10-8-09. We find that this decision was given on an application of 28-8-08 the contents of which are similar to the present application in that they seek legal opinion and advice from the CPIO, Supreme Court of India relating to the matter of bail granted, but is different in questions asked. Nevertheless, we also find that in the arguments in that case, in which the authorised representative of Shri Paul, namely Shri R.D. Paul was present, dealt extensively with the disposal of the case of 21-7-08 which is the application at issue in the present appeal. We have accordingly informed appellant Shri Paul on the telephone during the hearing.
DECISION NOTICE Our decision in the appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00873 announced on 10-8-09 is as follows:
"As is clear both from the application, the details of which have been quoted above, as well as confirmed by the argument of Shri R.D. Paul, representing Shri Ashish Kumar Paul in the 3 hearing, what Shri Paul is seeking is redress for what he perceives to have been injustice done to him through a conviction. Neither this Commission nor indeed the RTI Act itself has any jurisdiction in a matter going beyond simply the supply of information as is held by a public authority to an applicant.
Similarly, a CPIO exercising authority under the RTI Act can do no more than helping an applicant to access documents and records defined in Sec. 2 (f) of the RTI Act, and no more. The remedy for appellant Shri Paul, in this case, can only lie in seeking the assistance of the Law Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of India as to the course he might follow for redress for what he considers an injustice done to him. Besides, in his own rejoinder to the comments received from CPIO, Shri Raj Pal Arora, Addl. Registrar SCI, on the complaint notice, complainant is satisfied that "This information directly substantiates the corruption in judiciary". This Commission can do no more than has already been done by the CPIO in this case. For this reason, we find the complaint without merit and it is hereby dismissed."
We see no reason to differ in the present case, in which also it is the opinion of the CPIO that has been elicited except for question no 6, which stands answered, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 29-4-2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 29-4-2010 4