Central Information Commission
Shri S. C. Bhardwaj vs Supreme Court Of India (Sci) on 24 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01070 & 1379 dated 16.6.2008 and 4.8.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 19
Appellant - Shri S. C. Bhardwaj
Respondent - Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Decision announced: 24.2.2010
Facts:
These are two appeals received from Shri Satish Chander Bhardwaj at that time in Silvasa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli against information received from CPIO, Supreme Court of India.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01070 By an application of 25.3.08 Shri Satish Bhardwaj of Silvasa, Dadra, Nagar & Haveli applied to CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl Registrar, Supreme Court of India seeking the following information:
"I would like to request under the RTI Act 2005 the certified copies of the Books of Account, where Shri C. L. Sahu, advocate on Record, maintains his record of moneys- received and the money paid on his own account for the period year 2000 to year 2007. I also want to inspect and verify his all the Books of Account personally.' To this he received a response on 3.4.08 from CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar, as follows:
"The Books of Account of Shri C. L. Sahu, Advocate are not maintained by the Registry, Supreme Court of India. The information and documents sought by you are not held by or under the control of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India. As regards fee payable to Advocates you may refer to Second Schedule to Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which is available on Supreme Court website viz. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in and can be accessed there from.' 1 Not satisfied, however, Shri Bhardwaj moved an appeal before Shri M. P. Bhadran, Registrar on 30.4.08, as follows:
"Shri Ashok Kumar, CPIO is not giving proper reply. He has not provided any information, which was asked in my RTI queries dated 24.3.2008. He cannot direct me to go to website of Supreme Court etc. This is totally a mischief on behalf of the CPIO and protecting Shri C. L. Sahu, Advocate on Records by denying me desired information."
Upon this, Shri M. P. Bhadran has in his order of 26.5.08 found as follows:
"The Books of Account of Shri C. L. Sahu, Advocate-on-Record are not maintained by the Registry and hence CPIO is not in a position to supply the copies of same or to allow the appellant to verify the same. The fee structure of advocate-on-record is available in second Schedule of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. So, I find no error in the impugned order passed by the CPIO. There is no merit in this appeal and it is only to be dismissed."
In his second appeal, appellant's prayer before us is as under:
"(1) To issue direction to the CPIO & AA to furnish information, certified documents and allow to inspect the Book Account of Shri C. L. Sahu, Advocate-on-
Record, where he maintains his records of moneys received and the money paid on his account for the period year 2000 to 2007 also provide certified information regarding fees structure of the Advocate-on- Record.
(2) To order an inquiry against the CPIO & AA for not implementing the Right to Information Act properly. (3) To impose penalties and disciplinary action against CPIO & AA under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005."
The appeal was scheduled to be heard by videoconference on 14.1.10. However, on 10.1.10, we received an Email from appellant Shri Bhardwaj seeking adjournment of the appeal by a month. This request was considered in the hearing on 14.1.10 when the following are present:
Respondents Shri Raj Pal Arora, Addl. Registrar / CPIO Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate 2 Shri Devadatt Kamat presented his vakalatnama, which has been taken on record. He also submitted that respondent be heard, which was agreed to. Learned Counsel Shri Devadatt Kamat submitted that there is no substance in this appeal, as the record is neither held by the SCI nor under its control. In support of this contention learned counsel displayed a copy of the Order for Advocates of Supreme Court Rules, 1966, in which sub-sections (i) & (ii) of Rule 6(c) read as follows:
Rule 6, Order IV Advocates
(c) Every advocate on record shall keep such books of account as may be necessary to show and distinguish in connection with his practice as an advocate on record-
(i) moneys received from or on account of and
the moneys paid to or on account of each of
his clients; and
(ii) the moneys received and the moneys paid
on his own account.
In answer to a question, he also submitted that there is no rule requiring the Advocate on Record to show these accounts to the Supreme Court. The Rule is only with regard to tax liabilities. In this context, he invited our attention to Rule 6(d), which requires that "Every advocate on record shall, before taxation of the Bill of Costs, file with the Taxing Officer a Certificate showing the amount of fee paid to him or agreed to be paid to him by his client." On this basis he contended that this order has been made with the objective of ensuring compliance with the laws on taxation.
.
Since appellant Shri Satish Bhardwaj wished to be heard in this matter and having heard respondents and recorded their arguments, the hearing was adjourned to 3.2.2010 at 12.00 noon when appellant Shri Satish Bhardwaj would be heard by videoconference with NIC Kochi, Kerala.
File no. CIC/WB/A/2008/01379 In this case, by a request of 31.10.07 Shri Satish Bhardwaj sought the following information from CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar, Additional Registrar, SCI:
3"I, therefore, request under the RTI Act, please provide the certified copy of the Court Master records of this proceedings, which he writes during the proceedings on dated 14.9.2007. Please give reason why Learned Registrar has changed the pronounced order. Why on dated 30.10.2007, Shri Sahu didn't appear and file the reply. He also didn't return the two files. Why Learned Registrar Shri Badran is not punishing Shri Sahu by pronouncing some cost on him because the applicant is coming from Silvassa to New Delhi and spending money for his travel since filing the application dated 27.7.2007. The applicant raised the objection before the LR Shri Badran about the order dated 14.9.2007 but there was no response and order was given that the list the case before Judge Chamber and date was also not given to the applicant. The applicant is contesting his transfer matter before Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai & Lucknow and it is necessary in the interest of justice that at least he should be inform about the convenient date of listing of case, when he was present in the court.
Please also provide all the certified documents in relation to posting of order on the COURTNIC website along with the names of the officials. Why Court Order dated 14.9.2007 was not posted to my New Delhi address and if posted diary no. etc."
To this, Shri Bhardwaj received a response dated 29.11.07, as follows:
"You are informed that the above document forms part of records of judicial proceedings and is not held by or under the control of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India. Further, your request does not fall within the scope of information as contemplated under the Right to Information Act, 2005."
However, upon not receiving this response Shri Bhardwaj had moved an appeal on 3.12.07 before Shri Sunil Thomas, Registrar, SCI, pleading that "I have not received any reply so far." Upon this, Shri Sunil Thomas in his order in appeal No. 84/2007 dated 18.12.07 directed as follows:
"In view of the fact that the appeal is preferred on the precise ground that the appellant has not received any reply from the CPIO and the available materials indicate that the CPIO has passed an order, I feel that the grievance of the appellant will not survive thereafter. Since the order passed by the authority is not challenged on merits in the appeal, I feel that the present appeal is liable to be disposed of, reserving the right of the appellant to challenge the order dated 29.11.2007, if he feels aggrieved."4
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"(1) To issue direction to the CPIO & AA to furnish information, certified documents and allow to inspect the proceeding recorded by the Court Master on dated 14.9.2007 of hearing on dated 14.9.2007 and order pronounced by Learned Registrar Shri Sunil Thomas.
Why the posting of the order dated 14.9.2007 was not done for the website COURTNIC- names of the officials those are involved in this. Why order dated 14.9.2007 was not posed by the Section 2 A to the applicant given address.
(2) To order an inquiry against the CPIO & AA for not implementing the Right to Information Act properly. (3) To impose penalties and disciplinary action against CPIO & AA under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 He has also objected to the hearing of his first appeal by Shri Sunil Thomas Registrar on the following grounds:
"1. Shri Sunil Thomas, Registrar, who heard the Criminal Appeal D-399/2007 and pronounced this order, dated 14.9.2007. he is also functioning as the appellate authority in this RTI Query."
Both appeals were heard on 15.2.2010 by video conference. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Satish Bhardwaj Respondents Shri Raj Pal Arora, Addl. Registrar, CPIO Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate for SCI Advocate Devadatt Kamat presented his vakalatnama on behalf of CPIO & FAA, SCI, which has been taken on record.
Appellant Shri Bhardwaj submitted that as per Supreme Court Rules quoted on page 3 of our Interim Decision, every Advocate on Record is expected to keep Books of Accounts. Since the Supreme Court has a rule covering this point, such Books of Accounts have also to be accessible to the Supreme Court and, therefore, qualify for definition as 'information', as per sec. 2(f) of the RTI 5 Act. In response learned Counsel for the Supreme Court Shri Devadatt Kamat submitted that no Books of Accounts are kept by the Supreme Court or checked by them. These are required to maintained by advocates to meet tax requirements. It will be open to appellant Shri Satish Bhardwaj to approach Income Tax Authorities to obtain this information, subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. These are neither held nor under the control of the Supreme Court making these accessible under the RTI Act from that public authority. Similarly, no fees are prescribed by the Supreme Court. The Second Schedule of Supreme Court Rules (Order XLII) is only for reference by the Supreme Court in ordering costs. The Regulatory Authority for such fees is, such as it is, not the Supreme Court but the Bar Council.
DECISION NOTICE FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2008/01070 In this case the issue is whether the information sought by appellant Shri Bhardwaj is "held by or under the control of" the Supreme Court of India, which will bring it within the definition of "Right to Information" u/s 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which is the information accessible under this Act. The question is that simply because there is a rule mentioning both issues on which information has been sought by appellant Shri Satish Bhardwaj, although there is no requirement within those rules to make such information available or place it under the control of the Supreme Court of India, because this falls under Supreme Court's own rules, can it, therefore, be deemed "to be held by or under the control of" the Supreme Court? We have also noted that we have addressed a similar appeal received from appellant Shri Bhardwaj in File No CIC/WB/A/2008/01069 between the same parties, which we had, on 29.9.'09 remanded to Registrar SCI who has in compliance disposed of the same by his order in Appeal No 177 of 2009 on 5.11.'09, against which order we have received no 2nd appeal.6
What appellant Shri Satish Bhardwaj in the present case has in fact sought is accessibility to the accounts and explanation for the fees of an Advocate on Record. For the reasons described above, because this concerns the professional conduct of a professional in conducting his profession for which he has been authorized, but not appointed, this cannot be treated as a public document, therefore, allowing access under the RTI Act. For this reason, this appeal is dismissed.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01379 In this case learned Counsel for respondents has argued that as clarified in the initial response to the RTI application, the information sought concerns judicial proceedings and that "Your application dated 31.10.2007 for Redressal of your grievance." The RTI Act is not a law for grievance redress.
Appellant Shri Bhardwaj, however, submitted that what he was seeking was part of the record and, therefore, accessible under RTI Act. In this context, learned Counsel for respondents invited our attention to the ruling of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 501/2009 - Supreme Court of India vs. S. C. Agrawal in which the learned Coram of Hon'ble Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. Murlidhar have come to the following conclusion with regard to accessibility under the RTI to notes, jottings and draft judgments, as follows:
62. The apprehension of the learned Attorney General that unless a restrictive meaning is given to Section 2(j), the notes or jottings by the Judges or their draft judgments would fall within the purview of the Information Act is misplaced. Notes taken by the Judges while hearing a case cannot be treated as final views expressed by them on the case. They are meant only for the use of the Judges and cannot be held to be a part of a record "held" by the public authority. However, if the Judge turns in notes along with the rest of his files to be maintained as a part of the record, the same may be disclosed. 1 It would be thus retained by the registry. Insofar as draft judgments are concerned it has 1 Underlined by us as argued to be pertinent to the present appeal 7 been explained by Justice Vivian Bose in Surendra Singh v.
State of UP AIR 1954 SC 194:
"Judges may, and often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgments either, however heavily and often they may have been signed. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the Court. That is what constitutes the „judgment ..."
The above observations though made in a different context, highlight the status of the proceedings that take place before the actual delivery of the judgment. Even the draft judgment signed and exchanged is not to be considered as final judgment but only tentative view liable to be changed. A draft judgment therefore, obviously cannot be said to be information held by a public authority.
Nevertheless, we find that in this case the first appeal was made only on ground of response not having been received by appellant Shri Bhardwaj, which grounds were found baseless and, therefore, the appeal dismissed. However, st because the 1 appellate authority has not addressed the questions of appellant, some of which, as argued before us, may have ramifications going beyond simply judicial proceedings, which are of direct concern to his public authority and because appellant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us u/s 18, or apprehension of malafide on the part of the SCI, the Commission has decided to remand this appeal to First Appellate Authority Shri M. K. Gupta, Registrar SCI, who is directed to dispose of the appeal within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this decision notice, under intimation to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission. This also disposes of the issue of appellant's objection to being heard by then appellate authority Shri Thomas. If not satisfied with the information so provided, appellant Shri Satish nd Bhardwaj will be free to move a fresh 2 appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3) 8 Both appeals are disposed of accordingly. Reserved in the hearing, this Decision is announced on this twenty-fourth day of February 2010 Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 24.2.2010 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 24.2.2010 9