Central Information Commission
Mr. Umesh Kumar Jain vs Supreme Court Of India on 27 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00536 dated 3-9-2010
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 (3)
Appellant: Shri S.M. Aurora
Respondent: Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Appeal Heard & Decision Announced 24.09.2010
FACTS
By an application of 7-6-2010 Shri S.M. Aurora of Vasant Vihar, New Delhi applied to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India seeking the following information:
1. Copy of The document acknowledging and registering my complaint against Skipper construction Co. sent by Supreme court on 2nd May 2006 to Sh. H.P. Sharma;
2. Copy of the document calling me for hearing in the Court of Sh. H.P. Sharma on my case sent by Supreme Court;
3. The date of hearing / proceedings / order as well as TERMS OF REFERENCE OF Sh. H. P. SHARMA, CLAIMS COMMISSIONER contained in the Supreme Court decisions dt.
7th April & 19th Sept. 2005.
To this he received a response from CPIO, Shri Rajpal Arora dated 23-6-2010 informing him as follows:
"I write to inform you that you are one of the claimant in the Skipper Construction & Co. matter i.e. SLP (Civil) No. 21000/1993.
Further, I write to inform you that certified copies of the judgments/ orders/ judicial records can be obtained by moving an application to Registrar (Copying), Supreme Court of India under Order XII, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 on payment of prescribed fee and charges. The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 are also available on the Supreme court of India website Viz www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in and can be accessed/ downloaded therefrom."
Aggrieved with this information Shri S.M. Aurora moved an appeal before Shri Sunil Thomas, Registrar, SCI on 27-6-10 with the following plea:
"Appeal against NONSUPPLY of requisite information by CPIO under RTI Act 2005 in terms of last para of his order dt. 23 June 2010."
By his order of 23-7-2010 Shri Sunil Thoma ruled as below:
1"It is evident that appellant is seeking certified copies of the documents which form part of the judicial record. The appellant is also party to the above proceedings. Being a matter pending in the .curt of law, the issue of certified copies and search of the documents are governed by Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. in the appeal the appellant has contended that the refusal of the CPIO amounts to a failure to discharge the obligations of CPIO and the Supreme Court Rules can not override the RTI Act. It is only to be held that Supreme Court Rules governs the procedure obtaining the records which is not in any manner contrary to Right to Information Act not it limits the rights of the citizen to obtain information or documents. It only regulates the procedure relating to issuance of certified copies. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the reply given."
This has brought Shri S.M. Aurora in his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"As I AM 72 YEAR OLD PENSIONER AND LEFT HIGH AND DRY BY MIGHTY SUPREME COURT I MOST HUMBLY APPEAL BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COMMISSION TO DIRECT THE CLAIMS COMMISSIONER, SHRI H P SHARMA TO PROVIDE REQUISITE CERTIFIED COPIES OF RELEVANT DOCUEMTNS. FURTHER IN CASE NO PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN PROCESSING OF MY COMPLAINT FOR REFUND OF DEPOSIT WITH SKIPPER CONST COMPANY DUE TO INACTION ON HIS PART HE MUST BE MADE TO COMPENSATE ME FOR Rs 37000/- ALONGWITH 18% INTERST SINCE 1991 UNDER RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN RTI Act 2005.
I, HEREBY APPEAL FOR INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS UNDER Sec. 18 SINCE BOTH CPIO & FAA HAVE SUMMARILY REJECTED MY CASE WITHOUT EXPLAINING AS TO HOW THEY ARE TREATING THIS INFORMAITON AFFECTING JUDICIAL PROCE AGAINT CRIMINALS / OFFENDERS. ALL THE DOCUMENS WITH THE CLAIMS COMMISSIONER HAVE TO INVESTIGATED INTO TO FIX RESPONSIBILITY."
The appeal was heard on 24-9-2010. The following are present.
Appellant:
Shri S.M. Aurora Respondents Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Advocate Mrs. Asha Ahuja, Branch Officer, SCI 2 Counsel for respondent Shri Devadatt Kamat produced his vakalatnama which has been placed on file.
We find that in a similar case in appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00005 decided on 19-10-2009 we had directed as follows:
"From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of Information having indeed been provided by the CPIO as held by him within the definition of "right to information" in Sec 2(j) of the Act. However since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case to the first Appellate Authority Shri Sunil Thomas to satisfy himself that his orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passes. This will be without prejudice to the right of the first Appellate Authority to initiate any penal action under the Indian Penal Code against the PIO if satisfied of any willful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a public servant while exercising statutory powers."
Shri S.M. Aurora, however, submitted that these orders have still not been complied with. He further submitted that he had a right to see the entire file in SLP (Civil) No. 21000/1993 in which he is an appellant. Learned counsel for respondents conceded that appellant did indeed have the right to access the file but he must apply to do so under Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 as already directed both by CPIO and Appellate Authority. He further invited attention of this Commission to the rulings of this Commission holding that rules under Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules are not in consistent with the RTI Act and, therefore, will apply with regard to judicial orders. The present case is pending before the Supreme Court and will, therefore, clearly fall within the category of judicial papers. He, however, clarified that under Order XII the appellant Shri S.M. Aurora is at liberty to move an application before the Registrar, SCI with the fees specified in that order to obtain the information sought with regard to any of the records of the judicial proceedings except those that are treated as confidential and disclosure of which would be violative of Section 8 (1) (b).
DECISION NOTICE Appellant Shri S.M. Aurora is advised to move an application under the requisite rules so as to obtain the information that he has sought. We cannot hold that the information sought by him has, in any way, been refused, only that he follow the prescribed procedure to access the information sought. Because appellant is an aged citizen of India it is also recommended to the Registry of the Supreme Court of India that supply of information once the prescribed procedure has been followed by appellant Shri Aurora may be 3 expedited under the Rules. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 24-9-2010 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 24-9-2010 4