Gujarat High Court
Dhavalkumar Kiritkumar Patel vs Director & 2 on 3 May, 2016
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/7232/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7232 of 2016
===========================================================
DHAVALKUMAR KIRITKUMAR PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DIRECTOR & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RASESH H PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.HEMANG H PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 03/05/2016
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemang Parikh for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 08.10.2015 of the Central Information Commission delivered while dealing with the second appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. It appears that the petitioner applied for getting certain information before the Public Information Officer-National Manuscript Commission, New Delhi. What the petitioner wanted by way of information was number of manuscripts stated to have been catalogued by National Manuscript Commission. The application dated 21.05.2014 made in that regard to the Public Information Officer enlists the information in form of manuscripts.
3.1 It appears from the aforesaid application that the following information/manuscripts kept in Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Tue May 10 00:41:22 IST 2016 C/SCA/7232/2016 ORDER digitized form in soft copy were asked for, C. Total number of manuscripts microfilmed by National Manuscript Mission.
D. List of Manuscripts microfilmed by mission with the information on the 31 fields (mentioned in point A) for each manuscript in a single Microsoft Excel/PDF/access/database file (or whatever format institute stores its database in) in DVD (P.S. Of A applies verbatim here) E. Total number of manuscripts digitized by National Manuscript Mission.
F. List of Manuscripts digitized by mission with the information on 31 fields (mentioned in point A) for each manuscript in a single Microsoft Excel/PDF/access/database file (or whatever format institute stores its database in) in DVD (P.S. Of A applies verbatim here).
G. Soft copies of all digitized manuscripts mentioned in Point F in DVDs. (If it is inconvenient to the institute to provide data in DVDs, I am ready to pay for or provide External Hard Disk for ease of storage of date.
H. Proceedings of National Empowered Committee from beginning of mission till date.
I. Proceedings of Executive Committee from beginning of mission till date.
J. Proceeding of Finance Committee from beginning of mission till date.
K. Proceeding of Project Monitoring Committee from beginning of mission till date.
L. List of repositories covered/ongoing digitization program of the Mission.
3.2 As far as the information enlisted at H to L above is concerned, the Central Information Commission Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Tue May 10 00:41:22 IST 2016 C/SCA/7232/2016 ORDER in paragraph 5 has observed that the said information runs into at least 1800 pages and the said information would be made available to the petitioner on payment of fees prescribed under the Act. The petitioner was allowed to take out the inspection and obtain the information and the photocopies of the pages upon payment of fees. Therefore, no grievance is surviving in respect of this information asked for.
4. The contention of learned advocate for the petitioner was addressed to non-supply of information enlisted at C to G. It appears that those are the manuscripts of which the respective authors are owners and that such persons are holding copyrights in respect of those information/manuscripts.
5. The reasoning supplied by the Second Information Commissioner against furnishing the said information to the petitioner in paragraph 3 may be extracted with pertinence, "3.....The Appellant stated that most of the manuscripts are more than a hundred years old and therefore, their copyright cannot vest in any individual or institute. He further submitted that the Respondents are planning to have a Digital Library, in which they will, in any case, reveal the copies of the manuscripts. He state that the majority of institutions that claim copyright of manuscripts are government institutions and such information should be available to the public. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant has sought soft copies of all digitized manuscripts, which amounts to 2.11 lakh contained in 1.85 crore pages. The details about the manuscripts are collected from individuals or private institutes who give their consent for having the manuscripts/books etc. digitized on the condition that the owner of the manuscripts will have the copyright and the Mission will have no right on it. The Respondents stated that the information is held by them in a fiduciary capacity and is covered by Section Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Tue May 10 00:41:22 IST 2016 C/SCA/7232/2016 ORDER 8(1) (e). A memorandum is signed between NMM and the party, wherein it is agreed that the ownership right of the material will rest with the owner(individual/institute etc.) Scholars and researchers can be provided the material exclusively for academic and research purposes with owner's consent. There is also a clause, which states that the Mission will not share the digital images with any other person without the consent of the owner. The Respondents stated that the information is also exempted from disclosure under Section 9 of the RTI Act. According to them, the question of Section 11 arises only when the information passes the test of Section 8 and Section 9."
5.1 After the aforesaid discussion, the Commission has observed thus, "4...We would not go into the question whether the information sought in this case is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act. In case the Appellant believes that the copyright of some of the manuscripts should not vest in any individual/institute, he has to take up the matter with the individuals/institutions claiming such a right. The CIC cannot address this matter under the RTI Act. Suffice it to say that the manuscripts have been digitized by the Respondents after signing a memorandum with the concerned parties, which provides that they will not share the digital images with any other person without the consent of the owner. Therefore, they are bound by a contractual obligation not to share the manuscripts without the consent of the owner. In this sense, they are not the holder of the information, which continues to be held by the individuals/institutes concerned. Further, in view of the large number of manuscripts, reference of third party owners by the Respondents under Section 11 of the RTI Act would not a practical proposition. The Appellant is at liberty to seek the consent of the concerned owners in respect of such manuscripts, copies of which are required by him. A strong case can be made out regarding free availability to the public of such manuscripts that represent the literary heritage of the country......."
5.2 The aforesaid reasoning supplied by the Central Information Commission can be said to be eminently just and proper inasmuch as the functions of the authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Tue May 10 00:41:22 IST 2016 C/SCA/7232/2016 ORDER is delimited to passing orders regarding supply of information to the applicant asked for under the Act and to oversee in right-to-information jurisdiction that the Public information Officer or the Appellate Authority has discharged its functions.
5.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Information Commissioner has not gone into Section 8 and clauses thereof in the context of information asked for. When the Information Authority could not have gone into the basic aspects and availability of copyright of information and therefore, non-furnishing thereof to the petitioner, it was justified in accepting the reasoning of the Public Information Officer and for that reason, not going into the aspect of Section 8 of the Act.
6. Any other question not relating to the information or beyond furnishing of information asked for, such as aspect of copyright as arising in this case, cannot be gone into or pronounced upon by the information authority. It was clearly not within the domain of the Information Commission. Therefore, when learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that under Section 22 of the Indian Copyright Act, the copyright available on book subsisting, this is not the point to be gone into or decided in the right to information jurisdiction. This suggestion to assail the order and the reasoning of the Central information Commission was based on misconception and the nature of right under the Right to Information Act would hardly be countenanced.
Page 5 of 6HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Tue May 10 00:41:22 IST 2016 C/SCA/7232/2016 ORDER
7. For the aforesaid reasons, there is not merit in the present petition. The petition fails. The same is dismissed summarily.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) chandrashekhar Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Tue May 10 00:41:22 IST 2016