Central Information Commission
Biswajit Chowdhury vs Supreme Court Of India on 20 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
ADJUNCT DECISION
Biswajit Chowdhury ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
SUPREME COURT LEGAL
SERVICES COMMITTEE
(SCLSC) ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Adjunct Decision: 17.04.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The instant Second Appeal was heard and decided by the Commission on 06.11.2024, as under:
"Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on 14.05.2023 PIO replied on 14.07.2023 First Appeal filed on 03.08.2023 First Appellate Order on 23.08.2023 2ndAppeal/complaint received on 30.08.2023 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:-Page 1 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
'1) Is there any Supreme Court approved guideline on conducting the mediation related to CHILD ACCESS/CUSTODY and PARENTING? IF YES, Please provide me the soft copy.
2) Hon'ble DELHI HIGH COURT & many Hon'ble High Courts have a panel of CLINICAL/CHILD Psychologists 'who sit in the mediation effort for upto 5 sittings. Does Supreme Court Mediation Centre have such a panel? If YES, then why was not a Child Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist provided for protecting the fragile childhood of my Child at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre (SCMC) on both the dates
2.a) If NO, then what is the process of empanelment of mediators at SCMC and how is case allocation done to settle a sensitive dispute, particularly the ones involving a Child's Welfare?
3) How does SCMC ensure that the mediators are updated about the latest developments in Social Science / Psychology/and most importantly trained to sit on a dispute settlement session involving a child's welfare keeping in line with United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child' to which Government of India is also a signatory.
4) The Ld. mediator refused to invite/meet the 06 (Six) year old Child, suffering from severe/complete' Parental Alienation Syndrome with her non-custodial parent/father despite multiple requests. What is the official policy of SCMC when it comes to allowing entry of minor Children at SCMC during child custody matters and availability of family or child friendly room in the sprawling new campus?
4 a) If Children are also not allowed at SCMC, then WHY is it allowed at Mediation Centers of many Hon'ble High Courts including the DELHI HIGH COURT and not allowed at mediation center under the Apex Court of the nation?
4 b) Please provide me the track record of Ld. mediator Advocate Ms. Nina Gupta in matrimonial dispute settlement cases at the SCMC involving child custody cases over the last 3 years & her credentials in child psychology.' Page 2 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct The CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee vide letter dated 14.07.2023 replied as under:-
'Point No. 1:-There is no guideline relating to child access/custody and parenting as per record available with Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Point No. 2:-No panel of "Clinical / Child Psychologists in the SCMC Point No. 2 a:-The process of empanelment of mediators is by undergoing training of mediators through competent authority and empanelment in SCMC by the Chairman of Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee, Supreme Court of India.
Point No. 3:-It is a part of training conducted by the Competent Authority. Point No.4:-There is no restriction for entry of children in Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Point No.4a: There is no restriction for entry of children in Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Point No. 4 b:- The Supreme Court Mediation Centre empanel the trained mediator trained by the competent authority.' Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO specifically with respect to his queries numbered as 2a), 3 and 4b), the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2023. The FAA, Supreme Court of India vide order dated 23.08.2023 held as under:-
'It is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to take action against any authority or to direct any authority to take action or to give explanation, opine, comment or advise on matters, etc. Further, for seeking information relating to other Public Authorities, you may if so advised, contact the concerned Public Authorities, if any, under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005.Page 3 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
Further, an appropriate reply w.r.t your application dated 16/05/2023 has already been given to you, vide this Registry's letter Dy. No. 720/RTI/23-24/SCI dated 19/05/2023. Further, the First Appeal under RTI Act, 2005, preferred by the applicant relating to reply of CPIO, Supreme Court of India has been dismissed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority vide order dated 11/07/2023 in Appeal No. 346 of 2023 (in Dy. No. 720 & 720A/RTI/23- 24/SCI).
No further information in this regard on the part of CPIO, Supreme Court of India, is called for.' Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present Respondent: Ms. Himani Sarad CPIO with Ms. A Deepa, Advocate and Ms. Sudha Gupta - AOR were present from the Supreme Court of India during hearing. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma Asstt. Section Officer on behalf of Ms. Nidhi CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee were also present for the hearing.
The Appellant has submitted a written note during the course of hearing. Deliberations between parties reveal that the Appellant is dissatisfied with response of the PIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee on his queries number 2a), 3, 4 and 4b). He has contended that response given on these points were vague and incomplete and contained no specific accurate information.
Respondent from Supreme Court Legal Services Committee reiterated the response sent by them but could not justify not furnishing accurate information about the process of empanelment of mediators Decision:Page 4 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
In the light of the circumstances of the case at hand, the Respondent PIO is hereby directed to revisit the queries raised by the Appellant and furnish a point wise reply providing accurate information regarding process of empanelment of mediators, parameters/guidelines followed for case allocation by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and information with respect to queries number 2a), 3, 4, 4b). The revised reply should contain specific and accurate information, but should not divulge any information expressly exempt within the provisions of the RTI Act. The Respondent shall send the revised reply to the Appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report must be submitted by the Respondent - PIO, SCLSC before the Commission within one week thereafter. It is made clear that non adherence of the aforesaid directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly"
2. In furtherance of the above decision, the CPIO provided the following reply dated
05.12.2024 to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission vide compliance report dated 13.12.2024:
2(a)- The details and information regarding the empanelment of mediators is available on website of Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC] [mepe.nic.in). The MCPC is headed by the Senior Most Judge of Supreme Court of India with two other Senior Judges as its Member along with others. Present composition of MCPC is as follows:-
1. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. R. Gavai, Judge, Supreme Court of India & Chairman, MCPC.
2. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. M. Sundresh, Judge, Supreme Court of India & Member, MCPC.
3. Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. S. Narasimha, Judge, Supreme Court of India & Member, MCPC.Page 5 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India & Member, MCPC.
5. Mr. Bharat Parashar, Member Secretary, NALSA & Member, MCPC.
6. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Registrar (OSD), Supreme Court of India & In-Charge, MCPC.
The Mediation Rules 2015, are followed and there is a training manual of the Mediators. Copy of the Mediation Rules, 2015 and the Mediation Training Manual is attached herewith. The cases are allocated on the basis of the equal distribution of work on sequence basis.
3- The re-fresher training programmes organised as per the resolutions and decision taken in the meeting of the MCPC as the MCPC is Governing Body and Policy maker of mediation process including the trainings of mediators. The training programmes (available on mepe.nic.in) are as under:
40 Hours Training Module (available in the Mediation Training Manual) Capsule Course (Advance Course) (Copy attached) 20 Hours Refresher Programme (Copy attached) 4- The process provided in Rule No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 of the Mediation Rules, 2015 are followed to conduct Mediation. The circular dated 14.10.2022 regarding entrance regarding mediation purpose is attached herewith. The concept of mediation is to encourage the parties to find solution. Mediator is neither empowered nor supposed to interfere in resolution process of the parties. He/She cannot impose his/her solution on the parties.
4b- The mediator Ms. Nina Gupta has been assigned five matrimonial cases till date.
3. Alleging non-compliance of the Commission's directions, the Appellant filed a non-
compliance application dated 16.12.2024, inter alia stating as under:
"Current Issue:Page 6 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
Despite the clear directions of the Commission, the response recently provided by the CPIO remains grossly inadequate. Instead of addressing the explicit information sought, the response dated 05.12.2024 [F-85/SCLSC/RTI/2023] is voluminous and yet vague, deliberately beating around the bush. It fails to provide clear and specific answers, as required under the RTI Act, and instead:
1. Misleads and misdirects the issue at hand.
2. Preposterously sweeps critical information under the carpet, avoiding explicit responses.
3. Provides inaccurate and irrelevant information that does not address the essence of the queries.
This continued failure to provide the requested information clearly violates the Commission's order. The CPIO's actions undermine the RTI Act and reflect a disregard for the principles of transparency and accountability mandated by law.
Relief Sought:
In light of the above, I respectfully request the Hon'ble Commission to:
1. Invoke Section 20(1): Initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO for:
Persistent Non-Compliance: The CPIO has failed to provide accurate and specific information despite explicit directions from the Commission.
Deliberate Evasion: The CPIO's willful negligence in addressing the explicit queries subverted the transparency objectives of the RTI Act.
Deterring Future Violations: Imposing a penalty under Section 20(1) will ensure accountability and serve as a deterrent against such evasive practices in the future.
2. Issue Specific Directions/Advice: I seek the Commission's guidance or advice on the next steps to ensure compliance. This may include issuing fresh and specific directions Page 7 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct to the CPIO to furnish point-wise replies to the pending queries within a fixed timeline, avoiding evasive responses.
I trust the Hon'ble Commission to ensure that justice is upheld and evasive practices do not subvert the objectives of the RTI Act. Invoking punitive measures and advisory directions will reinforce adherence to transparency and accountability."
4. The instant matter was taken up for hearing by this Bench on 25.03.2026, vide hearing notice issued on 05.03.2026, in pursuance of an order dated 13.02.2026 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 3849/2025, wherein it was inter alia observed and held as under:
"7. Petitioner in person submits that pursuant to the directions passed by the CIC, the petitioner was furnished incomplete, evasive and vague response by the respondent. He, therefore, submits that he immediately again approached the CIC, raising his grievance that the continued evasive and incomplete reply is causing undue hardship and mental harassment to the petitioner. According to him, the response thereto by the respondent was misleading.
8. The aforenoted submissions are vehemently opposed by learned counsel who appears for respondents. She takes the Court through the reply furnished vide letter dated
05.12.2024 and has read Annexure P-7, explaining that the information as was directed was duly supplied. She also submits that there is no reason to hide or retain any information which otherwise the petitioner is entitled to.
9. I have heard petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The primary issue involved herein is with respect to alleged incomplete supply of the information sought by the petitioner. Under the provisions of Section 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act, it is provided that the CIC or State Information Commission (SIC), as the case may be, are fully empowered to enquire into a complaint by any person, who believes that he or she has been given incomplete / misleading or false information under the provision of the RTI Act. Furthermore, Sub-Section 2 of Section 18 provides that where the CIC or Page 8 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct SIC as the case may be is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to enquire into the matter, it may initiate an enquiry into the matter in respect thereof.
11. For the purpose of conducting the enquiry by virtue of Sub-Section 3, of Section 18 of RTI Act, the Commissions are vested with the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with respect to certain matters as stipulated there.
12. Having considered the aforesaid provision, the Court finds that the provisions of the RTI Act are a complete code in itself and contains the answer, to the grievance raised by the petitioner.
13. So far as the submissions made by the petitioner that the CIC has not considered his concern appropriately, the Court reminds the CIC to its power and authority and directs that in case the CIC receives the complaint within a period of 15 days from today with respect to incomplete compliance of the directions already passed by the CIC, let the said complaint be taken to its logical conclusion with due expedition not beyond 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the complaint.
14. The aforesaid exercise is necessary in order to ensure that the object of the RTI Act is fully achieved. It is pertinent to note herein that the petitioner seems to be litigating for the desired information from the year 2023, the undue delay would frustrate the provisions of the RTI Act.
15. With these observations, leaving all the questions open, the petition stands disposed of."
Adjunct Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. On behalf of the Respondent, S K Kamesh Nookala, Addl. Registrar & CPIO along with Ravi Shanti Bhushan, Supreme Court of India and Nidhi, CPIO, SCLSC along with Sudha Gupta, Advocate, SCLSC attended the hearing in person.
Page 9 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct6. Nidhi, CPIO, SCLSC stated that the Commission's directions issued vide order dated 06.11.2024 was duly complied with by their office on 05.12.2024 and no other information is available for furnishing to the Appellant.
7. The Representative(s) present from the Supreme Court of India submitted that they serve no role in the adjudication of the instant matter and may be suitably discharged from being listed as one of the Respondent(s).
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the Appellant has not raised any legally tenable contention against the CPIO's compliance reply dated 05.12.2024. Instead, the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the averred reply appears to be rather labored in nature. As far as the reply of 05.12.2024 is concerned, the Commission finds that in terms of the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the CPIO's reply adequately suffices the clarification based nature of the RTI queries. Given the facts of the instant case, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] which inter-alia observed as under:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely Page 10 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information...."
9. Further, it needs to be appreciated that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions/inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subjected to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;.."
10. Besides, it would be in order to refer to the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the Aditya Bandhopadhyay (supra) judgment:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." Emphasis Supplied Page 11 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
11. Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Lastly, adverting to the vague/inconclusive allegations/concerns of the Appellant, aimed at falsifying the information provided by the CPIO, it would be relevant to refer to the following judicial pronouncements:
(i) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013, has held inter-alia as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished." Emphasis Supplied
(ii) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017, wherein, inter-alia it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."Page 12 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
(iii) Further, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013, inter-alia observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
13. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds the prayer raised by the Appellant in his non-compliance complaint dated 16.12.2024 as bereft of merit.
14. The Commission also dispenses with the role of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India in the matter.
15. The case is closed accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 17.04.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 13 of 13 Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)