Central Information Commission
Mr. Jojo Jose vs Supreme Court Of India on 6 March, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001125
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 6 March 2013
Date of decision : 6 March 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Jojo Jose,
JS Legal Associates, Advocates &
Solicitors, 109 & 110BBC Complex,
150 Kilokri, Opp. Maharani Bagh,
New Delhi - 14.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present;
(i) Smt. Smita Vats Sharma, CPIO,
(ii) Ms. Sania Husaini, Advocate,
(iii) Shri Rajesh Inamdar, Advocate
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was not present for the hearing in spite of notice. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought four items of information regarding the SLPs filed in the Supreme Court between 1 January 2010 to 1 CIC/SM/A/2012/001125 January 2011. The CPIO had given him the available statistical details about the number of SLPs filed during this period but had observed that for the remaining queries, the Supreme Court did not maintain such details. The Appellate Authority had approved of the response of the CPIO.
4. We have carefully gone through the contents of the remaining RTI queries. In these queries, the Appellant has not sought any statistical detail; instead, he has sought such data which would have to be collected by going through each individual case file. For example, one of the queries is about the senior advocate who might have appeared at the admission stage when the SLP was first taken up by the Court. It is obvious that there is no reason why the Supreme Court should maintain a list of all the senior advocates appearing in various cases separately. In order to find out this information, the CPIO will have to go through each single case file and find out the name of the senior advocate. This is entirely beyond the scope of the duty of the CPIO under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. She is supposed to provide that information which exists in material form. The CPIO is not expected to do research and create information which does not otherwise exist.
5. Therefore, we have no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority in the case. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner CIC/SM/A/2012/001125 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001125