Central Information Commission
Navjot Lehal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 16 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTOCH/A/2023/652600
Navjot Lehal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o C.J.M. Chandigarh, New
District Courts Complex,
Sector: 43, Chandigarh -160043 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 26.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 03.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 04.07.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
"NOTE: vide request dated 30.05.2023 already on judicial record, CJM Court is FULLY ALIVE to mandate law of Apex Court that court CANNOT shut it's eyes to fraud judicial perjury committed with court, therefore, CJM is to take suo-moto action as per Apex Court mandate and file a complaint u/s 340 r.w. section 195 of CrPC. against accused advocate Rabindra Pandit for committing offences u/s 191, 192, 193, 204, 406, 420 468 of IPC.
(a) I be informed DATE of order of CJM Aman Inder Singh wherein he did COMPLIANCE of the said Apex Court mandate.
(b) I be informed Criminal Complaint UID Number registered by complainant CJM Aman Inder Singh against advocate Rabindra Pandit.
(c) If 'NO order and NO Complaint' in points above, I be informed the Act/ Notification/ Order/ Rule whereby CJM Aman Inder Singh can shut it's eyes towards fraud judicial perjury already stands committed with CJM, by advocate Rabindra Pandit vide his false statement on SA.
(d) Act/ Notification/ Order/ Rule whereby CJM Aman Inder Singh can cause inordinate delay in initiating perjury proceedings against advocate Rabindra Pandit, despite above said request.
(e) Act/ Notification/ Order/ Rule whereby CJM Aman Inder Singh can stifle and shuttle the criminal liability of accused Rabindra Pandit of offences 191, 192, 193, 204, 406, 420 468 of IPC, despite sai request.
(f) Act/ Notification/ Order/ Rule whereby CJM Aman Inder Singh has immunity/impunity to act as per his own whims and fancy, whereas as per law u/s 340 CrPC CJM court has to suo-sponte file complaint against accused Rabindra Pandit, but on CONTRARY CJM Aman Inder Singh do NOT act fairly as per principles of law.
(g) I be informed the PRAYER made by applicant in her application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. dated 25.01.2023,
(h) I be informed the PRAYER made by applicant in her application for putting up case file dated 03.06.2023, After NOTICE OF MOTION on 01.06.2023 in Crl. Rev.118 and Crl. Rev 119 both of 2023.
(i) Act/ Notification/ Order/ Rule whereby CJM Aman Inder Singh is empowered gain extra martial power to BLATANTLY IGNORE the PRAYER Page 2 of 9 made on 03.06.2023 on FALSE GROUND; Whereas its undisputed fact on record that prayer u/s 216 is totally different from prayer in application for putting up case file dated 03.06.2023."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.07.2023 stating as under:
"Refer your application dated 04.07.2023 seeking information under Right to Information Act, received in this office on 04.07.2023 itself.
In this regard, as regards to points (b), (g) and (h) of your application is concerned, information regarding the same was called from the concerned official posted in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and copy of same is enclosed herewith.
As regards to information sought in remaining points of your application, in this regard it is stated that under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records. documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inference and for making of assumptions or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why or under which provision of law such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to Page 3 of 9 why and for what reasons or under which provision of law the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs Administrative Officer & Ors. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009 has held as under:-
"Moreover, in the instant case, the petitioner submitted his application under Section 6 of the RTI Act before the Administrative Officer-cum- Assistant State Public Information Officer seeking information in respect of the questions raised in his application. However, the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him. A judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the petitioner before the public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary. A judge should be free to make independent decisions.
As the petitioner has misused the provisions of the RTI Act, the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition.
In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly."
As such, information sought at points (a), (c) to (f) and (i) of your application can not be provided. Qua these points, your application stands dismissed accordingly."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.08.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Page 4 of 9Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar, PIO, appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent PIO has withheld the information sought on points 4 (a, c to f and i) of her RTI application, on false, bad and baseless grounds. She pleaded that the information could only be denied by the PIO on the basis of section 8 and 9 of RTI Act wherein in present case none was applied by them.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 13.11.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. "I have the honour to submit that in the present case, the appellant Ms. Navjot Lehal had filed an application before this office seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was received vide Id No. 14 dated 04.07.2023.
2. It is relevant to state here that appellant Ms. Navjot Lehal has got registered a case bearing FIR No. 268 dated 30.11.2014, u/s 342, 354A, 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Samrala, Punjab, which was received by transfer in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and trial of said case is pending before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. During course of proceedings of said case, on 30.05.2023, appellant Navjot Lehal filed an application to take action against Sh. Rabindra Pandit, Advocate for the accused persons and the said application was taken on record. Thereafter on 25.07.2023, she filed another application for taking action, and registration of FIR against Sh.
Rabindra Pandit, Advocate. Said application was dismissed by Dr. Aman Inder Singh, the then Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, on the same day, while observing that said application was not maintainable in the present proceedings and the complainant can avail the remedy available to her as per law.
Page 5 of 93. In this background, the applicant had filed the application under appeal. In para no. 4(a) of her application, the applicant has sought date of order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein he did the compliance of order of Hon'ble Apex Court. However, no detail of order has been given which was required to be complied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. As regards to paras no. 4(b), (g) and (h), the information qua the same has duly been supplied to the applicant, after calling from the concerned official. In remaining paras, the applicant has sought information as to Act/Order/Rule/ Notification on the basis of which the Court had passed the order. The applicant has herself presumed that Sh. Rabindra Pandit, Advocate, has committed judicial perjury and the Court has shut its eyes towards judicial perjury. Whereas, there are no findings of the Court on the record of the case that any perjury has been committed by Sh. Rabindra Pandit, Advocate. The information which is already in existence and accessible to the Public Authority, can be supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and no reply to the hypothetical questions / questions based on presumption, can be given. In para no.4(i), the applicant has mentioned that the Court has ignored her prayer made on 03.06.2023, on false ground. In this regard, learned First Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 25.08.2023, has rightly observed that, "the legal basis of any order made by a Judicial Officer does not qualify as information that can be supplied. Whatever is mentioned in judicial order can be seen by any person by obtaining a certified copy thereof. No questions can be asked regarding the reasons which weighed with the Judicial Officer in passing the orders. No justification for a judicial order can be asked to be given under the Right to Information Act, 2005." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs Administrative Officer & Ors. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009 has very clearly held that, "A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public Page 6 of 9 authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him. A judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the petitioner before the public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary. A judge should be free to make independent decisions. 8. As the petitioner has misused the provisions of the RTI Act, the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition."
4. Thus, in such factual position, it cannot be answered in RTI application, as to under which Act/Notification/ Order / Rule, the court can shut its eyes towards fraud or the Court can cause inordinate delay in initiating perjury proceedings or that Court can stifle and shuttle the criminal liability of accused or that the Court has immunity to act as per his own whims and fancy.
5. Here it is also relevant to state that in the year 2023 itself, the applicant has filed as many as 10 applications seeking information under Right to Information Act. Copies of said applications are enclosed herewith as Annexure-1 to Annexure-10. Perusal of all these applications shows that whenever any order was passed by the Court against her, she filed RTI applications seeking legal basis of the order or the authority of the Court to pass such order. In some applications, the applicant has sought information regarding the applications filed by her own viz. date of such applications, name of addressee, name of sender etc., fully knowing that said applications were filed by her. In some of the applications, she has also leveled allegations against the Courts. A contempt notice has also been issued to her by the Court of Sh. Bharat, Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh. Thus, intentions of the applicant appear to be mala fide, aimed at harassing the public authority and its officials, rather than seeking genuine information. This has caused undue strain on the public authority's resources, diverting attention from its primary functions. In a similar case, Sh. M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Hon'ble Information Commissioner. Central Information Commission, New Delhi, in order dated 25.02.2016, passed in case CIC/SA/A/2015/001849, titled "Jagdish Page 7 of 9 Kumar Koli Vs Department of School Education" has directed the appellant in that case that he shall not repeat such RTI applications and also directed the respondent authority not to cause wastage of public resources in responding to a repeated, frivolous and harassing RTI application. Copy of said order is enclosed herewith as Annexure-11.
6. In these circumstances, it is requested that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and she be also directed not to file such RTI applications in future, so that the wastage of public resources can be curtailed, and the Government officials can focus on their other important official duties."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the respondent has provided point-wise reply vide letters dated 26.07.2023 and 25.08.2023 wherein information sought on points (b), (g) and (h) of the RTI application was furnished and the same was acknowledged by the appellant. The respondent submitted that information sought on the remaining points did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
The respondent submitted that the appellant has herself presumed that Sh. Rabindra Pandit, Advocate, has committed judicial perjury and the Court has shut its eyes towards judicial perjury. Whereas there are no findings of the Court on the record of the case that any perjury has been committed by Sh. Rabindra Pandit, Advocate. Thus, the information which is already in existence and accessible to the Public Authority, can be supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and no reply to the hypothetical questions / questions based on presumption, can be given.
The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority. The reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has observed as under:
"35......... But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules Page 8 of 9 or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant..............."
Further, the respondent has filed detailed written submission dated 13.11.2024 wherein complete facts of the case is given and the same was taken on record in the preceding paragraph.
As far as RTI is concerned, the Commission finds that reply given by the respondent is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, C.J.M. Chandigarh, New District Courts Complex, Sector: 43, Chandigarh - 160043 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)