Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Johnson Kurian vs High Court Of Other States on 29 December, 2021

                                के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली,
                              ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HCOST/A/2019/151608

Shri Johnson Kurian                                         ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                   ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
High Court of Kerala

Date of Hearing                     :    28.12.2021
Date of Decision                    :    29.12.2021
Chief Information Commissioner      :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on             :   29.04.2019
PIO replied on                       :   24.05.2019
First Appeal filed on                :   27.06.2019
First Appellate Order on             :   15.07.2019
2ndAppeal/complaintreceived on       :   28.10.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated29.04.2019 seeking information regarding press report published by Times of India on 24.01.2017 wherein it was reported that Kerala government had filed an affidavit regarding the implementations of recommendations of Kasturirangan Panel report on protection of Western Ghats in Kerala before the Honorable High Court of Kerala on the following points:-

The PIO/Additional Public Relations Officer, vide letter dated 24.05.2019 replied to as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2019. The FAA/Registrar General vide order dated 15.07.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He acknowledged the receipt of the written submission dated 21.12.2021 from the Respondent but stated that satisfactory information has still not been provided.

The Respondent represented by Shri T.S. Arun, CPIO and PRO, High Court of Kerala participated in the hearing through video conference. He reiterated his written submission dated 21.12.2021 wherein it was inter alia stated that the Appellant was seeking information regarding an affidavit filed by the Government of Kerala in some judicial proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and copy of the affidavit. While referring to Rule 12 of the Kerala High Court (RTI Rules) 2006, it was stated that the said rule expressly barred disclosure of information relating to a judicial proceeding which covered points 1 to 4 and 6 of the RTI application. In point no 5, the Appellant sought information regarding the High Court cases regarding illegal quarrying activities happening in Moonilavu village of Kottayam District. In response to the said query based on the search of the keyword Moonilavu in the case information system with available details of the number of cases filed under the Mines and Minerals Act was furnished to the Appellant and any further details were prohibited from disclosure as per Rule 12 of the above mentioned rules. It was also stated that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court vide order dated 16.04.2008 in WP (C) 13223 of 2008 had stayed all proceedings of SIC, Kerala involving application of Rule 12 of the Kerala High Court (RTI Rules) 2006. A reference was also made to the judgement of the 3 judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner vs Page 2 of 4 High Court of Gujarat (2020) 4 SCC 702. Furthermore, it was stated that the Appellant was seeking information based on a 2 year old newspaper report without furnishing any further details of the case and was expecting the PIO to identify the said proceedings from among the huge pending cases before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.

Decision:

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observes that the issues pertaining to accessing certified copies of documents on the judicial side has been settled by a bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Royof the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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:-

"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 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."

Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal which is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4