Central Information Commission
Inder Singh vs Supreme Court Of India on 15 September, 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 Nos. CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/661221
CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/661299
CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/663500
CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/672971
CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/674118
Shri Inder Singh ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Supreme Court of India ... ितवादीगण
Through: Shri Deepak Goel- Advocate and /Respondent
Shri Ajay Aggarwal - CPIO and Addl. Registrar
Date of Hearing : 11.05.2021
Date of Interim Decision : 11.05.2021
Date of Final Decision : 15.09.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Note: The present batch of Appeals as listed above has been preferred
by the same Appellant. The Commission proposes to club these matters
and adjudicate upon them all together through the present order for
the sake of brevity and avoidance of multiple proceedings.
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
on appeal received
on
661221 12.10.2019 05.11.2019 03.12.2019 23.12.2019 30.12.2019
661299 26.10.2019 28.11.2019 03.12.2019 23.12.2019 31.12.2019
663500 28.10.2019 27.11.2019 25.12.2019 10.02.2020 13.02.2020
672971 29.03.2020 -- 02.04.2020 --- 06.06.2020
674118 27.01.2020 25.02.2020 29.04.2020 --- 14.06.2020
Page 1 of 8
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/661221 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2019 raising three queries, including seeking a certified copy of letter No. EC/54/2013 dated 16.07.2013, certified copies of Supreme Court orders restraining disclosure of proceedings of District Court, Family Court, Mahila Court on the internet, particularly after May 2018.
The CPIO vide letter dated 05.11.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant for point number 1 of the RTI application stating that Appellant may deposit Rs. 2/- in favour of Registrar/Accounts Officer, Supreme Court of India for obtaining a true copy of letter No. EC/54/2013 dated 16.07.2013. For points 2 and 3, the CPIO informed the Appellant that the information sought is in the nature of seeking legal opinion/advice on a matter which is subjudice and hence the request is not covered under provisions of the RTI Act, and is beyond the purview of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India. It was further stated that copies of all orders/judgments could be accessed from the website www.sci.gov.in.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.12.2019 claiming that he is a BPL Card holder and hence no fee should be asked from him for dissemination of information. The FAA vide order dated 23.11.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO, while directing that a copy of the letter No. EC/54/2013 dated 16.07.2013 may be provided to the Appellant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/661299 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2019 seeking informationon 6 points about the online portal for filing RTI applications in Supreme Court of India, High Court, District Court, date of commencement of online filing of RTI matters and also number of online applications filed during the last ten years in the Judicial system.
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.11.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant stating that online portal for receiving RTI requests and Appeals digitally is under examination in the Supreme Court of India. Further, the CPIO Page 2 of 8 informed the Appellant that for seeking information relating to other public authorities, he can make separate RTI applications to the concerned public authorities as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.12.2019. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal seeking information against queries 3-6.
(3) CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/663500 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2019 seeking information regarding holidays observed by the Supreme Court of India during the last 5 years.
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.11.2018 furnished a reply to the Appellant stating thathe may refer to sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Order II, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 available on the website www.sci.gov.in regarding holidays and Supreme Court Calendar under the link "Calendar" which can be accessed/downloaded therefrom.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.12.2019. The FAA vide order dated 10.02.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/672971 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 29.03.2020 seeking information regarding action taken on petition dated 25.03.2020 relating to hardship faced by street vendors during the lockdown.
Due to non-receipt of reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.04.2020, which has not been adjudicated.
Page 3 of 8A reply dated 23.07.2020 from PIO, SC is found on record informing the Appellant that his email dated 29.03.2020 has been received and diarised in PIL section and is under process. The CPIO also informed the Appellant that he can check action taken on his letter on the website of the Supreme Court by clicking on the "Grievance Management" option on the webpage. The FAA vide order dated 05.09.2020 disposed off the First Appeal as non- maintainable, dismissing it in limine.
Meanwhile, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Written submissions dated 03.05.2021 have been received from the Respondent reiterating the PIO's reply dated 23.07.2020 and FAA's order dated 05.09.2020.
(5) CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/674118 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 27.01.2020 seeking information regarding the relevant order whereby it has been made mandatory to submit an affidavit from the petitioners on written complaints submitted to the Court.
The CPIO vide letter dated 25.02.2020 furnished a reply to the Appellant stating that the information sought is in the nature of seeking legal advice/opinion on the matter which is sub-judice/decided before the Hon'ble Court. However, all the judgments of the Supreme Court are reported in law journals and judgments/orders are available on the website www.sci.gov.in.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2020 which was not adjudicated.
A copy of FAA's order dated 28.07.2020 is found on record whereby in view of the PIO's reply dated 25.02.2020, the First Appeal was dismissed in limine.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant who was connected through audio conference mode could not be heard properly due to problems with his mobile network. The Appellant Page 4 of 8 however requested for personal hearing in all these matters. The Respondent represented by Shri Ajay Agrawal, CPIO and Addl Registrar and Shri Deepak Goel, Advocate, participated in the hearing through audio conference.
Interim Decision:
Keeping in view the request made by the Appellant, the Commission directs the registry of this bench to list the instant matters for physical hearing/ hearing through video conference mode at the CIC premises in due course after improvement in the pandemic situation.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: 15.09.2021 The cases have been re-scheduled for Final Hearing through video conference held at the premises of the CIC, in terms of the Appellant's request. Written submissions have been received from PIO, Supreme Court of India reiterating the replies and information furnished in each of the above cases.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through video conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for hearing held through video conference and submit their respective contentions. The appeals are dealt with as under:
i) CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/661221 During the course of hearing the Appellant contended that only a copy of the letter No. EC/54/2013 dated 16.07.2013 had been provided in terms of the directions of the FAA vide order dated 23.11.2019. The Appellant claimed that he was aggrieved on denial of information against his remaining queries viz. certified copies of Supreme Court orders restraining disclosure of proceedings of District Court, Family Court, Mahila Court on the internet, particularly after May 2018.
Respondent explained that the Appellant had not sought any specific information, about any specific order from existing records. In fact such a roving and fishing query can only be answered on the basis of conjectures and surmises, for which there is no provision under the RTI Act.
Decision In terms of the RTI Act, and as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide the decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, that:
"...35...... where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be Page 5 of 8 maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions..."
In the light of the ratio of the above decision, the Commission finds that response provided by the Respondent is in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act and based on existing records. As such the case at hand requires no intervention.
ii) CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/661299 Both parties present for the hearing reiterated their respective contentions. The Appellant pointed out that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not have a digital portal, filing of RTI Application directly addressed to the Apex Judicial body is difficult for the information seekers. Respondent stated that though the work of developing an online portal for receiving RTI requests and Appeals digitally was under examination in the Supreme Court of India, due to the outbreak of the pandemic, like most things, the process got delayed.
Decision:
Upon hearing the averments of the parties and perusal of records of the case, the Commission notes that information as available on record has been duly provided by the Respondent. However, considering the emphasis on digitisation in most public authorities, for ease of access and functioning, it is recommended that important public authorities like the Supreme Court must initiate necessary steps for setting up an online portal for filing of RTI applications, in larger public interest.
iii) CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/663500
iv) CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/672971 Both parties present for the hearing reiterated their respective contentions, which emerge from the background of the above appeals.
Decision:
In the light of the averments of the parties and perusal of records of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that queries raised by the Appellant in the aforementioned two second appeals have been adequately answered by the Respondent. There is no requirement for any further adjudication in these two cases, wherein information as available on record has been duly furnished by the Respondent.Page 6 of 8
v) CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/674118 Both parties are present for the virtual hearing and Appellant submitted that owing to the mandatory requirement for submission of affidavit with written complaints before Courts, filing of cases before Courts becomes difficult for litigants. Hence he sought the above information.
Respondent clarified that information which exists on record has been provided, but information which does not exist on record and would require drawing of inference or opinion of the public official could not be provided by the PIO.
Decision Upon hearing averments of the parties, the Commission finds it pertinent to place reliance on the following observation of the Apex Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011]:
35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section
3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.
....................................................................................................
37. ......................... Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the Page 7 of 8 peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty..."
In the light of the above explicit observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commission finds no further intervention or adjudication is required in this case, wherein Respondent has already answered the Appellant's queries adequately.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के .िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner(मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 8 of 8