Central Information Commission
Ms. Shruti Singh Chauhan vs Supreme Court Of India (Sc) on 16 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01314 dated 4.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 19
Appellant - Ms. Shruti Singh Chauhan
Respondent - Supreme Court of India (SC)
Facts:
By an application of 30.5.07 Ms. Shruti Singh Chauhan of Pandav Nagar, Delhi applied to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India seeking the following information:
"List of all complaints received against judges or staff of different high courts during the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2007. The list should contain the following details:
a. Name and address of complainant.
b. Name of judge/ staff.
c. Brief allegations.
d. Date of receipt of complaint.
e. Action taken so far on the complaint.
Please provide the above list for each of the High Courts separately."
To this she received a reply on 11.6.07 from CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar refusing the information on the following grounds:
"This is to inform you that complaints against the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court or staff of different High Courts are not held by or under the control of the Supreme Court of India and hence your request cannot be acceded to."
Ms. Chauhan then moved her first appeal before the First Appellate Authority, Supreme Court of India on 9.8.07 pleading as follows:
"I am not satisfied with this reply and am therefore, filling my first appeal before you.
I, therefore, request you to kindly direct the CPIO to provide me the information that I have sought vide my RTI application dated 30.5.2007."1
Upon this Shri Sunil Thomas, Appellate Authority, Supreme Court of India, in a closely argued decision came to the following conclusion:
"The appellant at the time of argument did not contend that the CPIO, Supreme Court was holding the above information. The main thrust of her argument was that if the CPIO was not holding the information, he should have exercised his powers under section 6 (3), to refer the matter to the authority that was holding such information. A perusal of the above material shows that the CPIO, Supreme Court had asserted that he was not holding the above information since the information relates to the complaints given to the various High Courts. There is nothing to hold that information as to the authority that was holding the above information was held by or under the control of the CPIO, Supreme Court. Hence, he has not exercised the powers under section 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the absence of anything to show that the authority who was holding such information was within the knowledge of the CPIO, Supreme Court, I am not inclined to accept the argument that the CPIO ought to have exercised his powers under section 6 (3) of the Right to Information act, 2005.
Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed."
In her prayer before us in second appeal Ms. Chauhan has pleaded as follows:
"Please order the CPIO to provide complete information within seven working days without charging any fee as the CPIO has not provided the information within statuary period.
As the CPIO has not provided the information so far, the commission is also requested to impose a penalty under section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also order for the departmental disciplinary proceedings under section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
The appeal was heard on 13.2.2009. The following are present:
Appellant Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar Mr. Prashant Bhushan Ms. Cheryl D'Souza Respondents Mr. Amit Kumar, Lawyer Mr. Raj Pal Arora, CPIO / Addl. Registrar, SCI 2 Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar submitted a letter from Ms. Shruti Singh Chauhan authorizing him to pursue, argue and present her case before the Commission.
Shri Amit Kumar Learned Counsel for respondents submitted that the information asked for by Ms. Chauhan was not held by the Supreme Court. Nor was the authority that held such information within the knowledge of the CPIO. Appellant Ms. Chauhan had, therefore, been informed accordingly.
Shri Prashant Bhushan, Learned Counsel for appellant on the other hand submitted that as per the Code of Conduct of the Judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts adopted by a Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court of India on 7.5.97, and Conference of Chief Justices of all High Courts on 4.12.'99 a procedure had been laid down on entertaining complaints against High Court Judges whereby the Chief Justice of India is the only authority so to do.
Therefore, any such information, as sought by appellant Ms. Chauhan, must be held only at the level of the Supreme Court of India through the Office of the Chief Justice of India. On the contention of Learned Counsel for respondents submitted that the public authority concerned i.e. Supreme Court of India was not aware as to who held the information, learned Counsel Shri Prashant Bhushan submitted this argument was similar to that submitted in the case of Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs. Supreme Court of India considered by this Commission in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00426 in which too it had been contended that the information held by the Chief Justice was not held by the Supreme Court of India and this Commission has been pleased to overrule that contention. In that case this Commissin has ruled as follows:
"The CPIO of the Supreme Court is directed to provide the information asked for by the appellant in his RTI application as to whether such declaration of assets etc. has been filed by the Hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court or not within ten working days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice."3
To substantiate his plea that such information was held by the Chief Justice of India, learned counsel cited the setting up of two in-house Committees in the recent past to enquire into allegations of corruption against judges of the High Court. In this context he cited the report of the Committee of In-House Procedure for remedial action against Judges recommended to devise an in- house procedure for taking "suitable remedial action against Judges who by their acts of omission or commission do not follow the universally accepted values of judicial life including those indicated in the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" 1 of 7.5.1997. In this context he quoted extensively but the following points merit noting here:
1. "Where the complaint is received against a Judge of a High Court by the Chief Justice of the High Court, he shall examine it. If it is found by him that it is frivolous or directly related to the merits of a substantive decision in a judicial matter or does not involve any serious complaint of misconduct or impropriety, he shall file the complaint and inform the FJI accordingly. If it is found by him that the complaint is of a serious nature involving misconduct or impropriety, he shall ask for the response thereto of the Judge concerned. If on a consideration of the allegations in the complaint in the light of the response of the Judge concerned, the Chief Justice of the a High Court is satisfied that no further action is necessary he shall file the complaint and inform the CJI accordingly. If the Chief Justice of the High Court is of the opinion that the allegations contained in the complaint need a deeper probe, he shall forward to the CJI the complaint and the response of the Judge concerned along with his comments.
2. When the complaint is received by the CJI directly or it is forwarded to him by the President of India the CJI shall examine it. If it is found by him that it is either frivolous or directly related to the merits of a substantive decision in a judicial matter or does not involve any serious complaint of misconduct or impropriety, he shall file it. In other cases the complaint shall be sent by the CJI to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court shall ask for the response of the Judge concerned. If on a consideration of the allegations in the complaint in the light of the response of the Judge concerned the Chief Justice of the High Court is satisfied 1 Quoted from "Resolution Adopted by the Supreme Court in Respect of Declaration of Assets" 7.5.'97 4 that no further action is necessary or if he is of the opinion that the allegations contained in the complaint need a deeper probe, he shall return the complaint to the CJI along with a statement of the response of the Judge concerned and his comments.
3. After considering the complaint in the light of the response of the Judge concerned and the comments of the Chief Justice of High Court, the CJI, if he is of the opinion that a deeper probe is required into the allegations contained in the complaint, shall constitute a three member Committee consisting of two Chief Justice of High Courts other than the High Court to which the Judge belongs and one High Court Judge. The said Committee shall hold an inquiry into the allegations contained in the complaint. The inquiry shall be in the nature of fact finding inquiry wherein the Judge concerned would be entitled to appear and have his say.
But it would not be a formal judicial inquiry involving the examination and cross examination of witnesses and representation by lawyers."
On this basis, he submitted that in case of any complaint made against a judge of the High Court, the Chief Justice of India is invariably informed and it is he who would set up a Committee, if in his view a "deeper probe is required". Upon this learned Counsel for Respondents Shri Amit Kumar submitted that learned Counsel for appellant is expanding the scope of the appeal. The issue before the Supreme Court is simply the disclosure of information which it does not hold. Nor is it aware of who holds such information, enabling transfer u/s 6 (3).
DECISION NOTICE In this case the consistent plea of appellant Ms Chauhan has been that the SCI provide her the information and if not held by it should transfer the case to the authority holding the information, which on the face of it could be any of the High Courts of India. A public authority is no doubt expected to transfer an application u/s 6(3) if incorrectly addressed or mistakenly submitted. One public authority to which an application is addressed u/s 6(1) cannot be expected to 5 research an issue if it is entirely unconcerned with the subject of the information sought. Hence, appellate authority Shri Thomas in his ably handled first appeal has found that, "the appellant at the time of argument did not contend that the CPIO, Supreme Court was holding the above information. The main thrust of her argument was that if the CPIO was not holding the information, he should have exercised his powers under section 6 (3), to refer the matter to the authority that was holding such information." The SCI cannot therefore be faulted for mindless denial of information. The plea presented by learned counsel in the present hearing however, appears to arise from the response received. He would now be interested to know what action has been taken in light of the Resolution adopted by the Chief Justices' Conference of December 1999. Appellant has every right to seek this information, but it does not constitute a part of the present application or indeed even of the second appeal. Moreover in our Decision Notice of 6.1.'09 in Subhash Agrawal vs. Supreme Court of India, Appeal No CIC/WB/A/2008/00426, we have found that "the information concerning the Judges of the Supreme Court is available with the Supreme Court and the CPIO represents the Supreme Court as a Public Authority. 2 Under the RTI Act, he is, therefore, obliged to provide this information to a citizen making an application under the RTI Act unless the disclosure of such information is exempted under the law." In the present case this stand has been taken by appellant only in the hearing of the second appeal. This would therefore merit a fresh application before the CPIO. On this ground the present appeal is dismissed.
Reserved in the hearing this Decision is announced on this the sixteenth day of February 2009 in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 16.2.2009 2 Underlined by us for emphasis 6 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 16.2.2009 7