Central Information Commission
Mr.Charanjit Singh vs Supreme Court Of India on 13 May, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000262 dated 13-3-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Charanjit Singh
Respondent: Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Decision announced : 13.5.2010
FACTS
By an application of 6-5-2008 Shri Charanjit Singh of Janakpuri, New Delhi applied to the CPIO, SCI in what he termed as an application under RTI Act 2005, seeking a reply on "registration of the special leave of appeal (Crl) of 2008 No. D. No. 33720/2008, 28th of April 2008 by the Deputy Registrar, who had raised the similar objection which were earlier raised by A/Registrar and, in the view of applicant Shri Charanjit Singh, "the petitioner had given the appropriate reason to, U/Order X rule 6 (3) (4) SCR 1966, against the refusal to cure by the petitioner and of earlier request of the petitioner to list the matter for hearing before appropriate Supreme Court Bench against the following evidence was denied by A/R, D/R".
To this Shri Charanjit Singh received a response from CPIO, SCI Shri Ashok Kumar dated 12-5-08 informing him as follows:
"Special Leave to Appeal D. No. 33720/2008 titled Charanjit Singh vs. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr. Is defective and you have not cured the defects so far. Further it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the RTI Act 2005 to interpret the law, opine, comment and advise on matters."
Against this Shri Charanjit Singh has moved an appeal before the Registrar, SCI in which he has termed his case as "Charanjit Singh Vs. Chief Justice of India" and has titled it as 2nd Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005. In his order of 9-6-08 in Appeal No. 52/08 Shri M.P. Bhadran, Appellate Authority, SCI has found as follows:
"The request of the appellant to list the matter before the Hon'ble Court or before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers is not supported by the above provisions of the Supreme Court Rules. It is the admitted case of the appellant that so far he has not 1 cured the defects. So, it is a matter to be dealt with as per Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
Any how, the CPIO has nothing to do with the request made by the appellant. The duty of the CPIO is only to furnish the "information" as defined in Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. So the request made by the appellant is outside the purview of the duties of the CPIO. So, I find no error in the impugned order and the appeal is only to be dismissed."
Appellant has then moved an appeal before this Commission in which his prayer, if it can be construed as such, is as follows:
"Hon'ble Justice Bench of Supreme Court of India were intentionally indulged in corruptly manipulating prejudice order dt. 3.11.2008 in above case only to injure & victimized the innocent petitioner on fraudulent grounds the evidence are the conclusive proof of facts that the above Hon'ble Justices were abusing the basic principal & objective of the justice, to defeat the justice, the gravity of crime is proved equal to terrorist activity beyond any doubt?."
The appeal was heard on 13-5-2010. The following are present. Appellants Shri Charanjit Singh Shri Sushil Kumar Ms. Sanjay Chubey Shri Ram Kumar Respondents Shri Raj Pal Arora, Additional Registrar, Supreme Court of India Mrs. Asha Ahuja, Branch Officer, Supreme Court of India Shri Dev Dutt Kamat, Advocate, Supreme Court of India Shri D.D. Kamat, Advocate, counsel for respondent has submitted his vakalatnama, which is placed on record.
Given the ambiguity of the RTI Application appellant Shri Charanjit Singh was asked what information he sought. Upon this Shri Charanjit Singh invited our attention to what he has titled "the substantial questions" in his application of 6-5-08, which is as follows:
"How the truth will reach in the Court of justice & how the truth will prevail in the Court of Justice."
When informed by us that this question did not qualify as information u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act read with Section 2 (j) appellant Shri Charanjit Singh 2 wished to know what remedy he could seek in case of ill treatment by Supreme Court of India.
Shri D.D. Kamat learned counsel for respondent submitted that the language used by Shri Charanjit Singh was offensive and he wished to place his objection on record, both for the language used in the appeal and in the hearing. For his information however, appellant Shri Charanjit Singh was informed that in case he has any grievance he is welcome to move the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance under the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) at www.pgportal.gov.in DECISION NOTICE In answer to the specific question of Shri Charanjit Singh as to what this Commission could do to remedy what he perceived as a misapplication of law, the answer is clearly "nothing at all". The RTI Act cannot be used as an alternative means of accessing the law but is only an instrument for obtaining information as defined in the Act. Whereas it is correct that every institution defined as a public authority under sub Section (h) of Section 2 falls within the jurisdiction of the RTI Act, the authority of the Information Commission, a quasi judicial authority, is limited to ensuring access to information as defined in sub Section (j) of Section 2. The present appeal of Shri Charanjit Singh being well outside the coverage of the RTI Act 2005 is not only without merit, but also is vexatious and is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 13-5-2010 3 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 13-5-2010 4