2014 (1) TMI 1601 - Commission - Indian Laws

Request for information - Delay in providing information - Held that - All that the Appellant wants to know is about the number of cases reserved for orders in which no order has been passed even after a lapse of two months or more. This is plain factual information. As admitted by the CPIO himself in his reply, there is a practice followed in the High Court under which the Court Masters are supposed to compile such lists to be furnished to the Chief Justice of the High Court every month. Thus, this information should be available not only with the Court Masters but also in the office of the Chief Justice. Even if it is admitted that the office of the Chief Justice may not be compiling and collating such data received from the Court Masters, it should suffice if photocopies of the reports furnished by the Court Masters are provided to the Appellant. Besides, the disclosure of such information would serve a larger public interest as the litigating public would come to know about the time being taken by the High Court in finally disposing of the cases. It is well-known that the pendency of cases before the courts is one of the major concerns among the people - it would suffice if this information is provided for a period of two years only preceding the date of the RTI application. However, if a cumulative list of such pending reserved orders in the High Court is being compiled anywhere in the High Court including the office of the Chief Justice, it would also suffice to provide a copy of that to the Appellant - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Request for information on cases with reserved orders not passed after two months. Disclosure of information under RTI Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the disclosure of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellant sought information on cases where orders had been reserved but not passed for two months or more. The Respondent argued that such information was not maintained and was provided to the Chief Justice of the High Court in a sealed cover, claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Upon hearing both parties, the Commission disagreed with the Respondent's contentions. It was noted that the information requested by the Appellant was factual and should be available with the Court Masters and the office of the Chief Justice. The Commission highlighted that disclosing such information would serve a larger public interest by informing the litigating public about the time taken by the High Court to dispose of cases, considering the issue of pending cases being a major concern.

As a result, the Commission directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to locate relevant records, such as reports provided by Court Masters to the Chief Justice monthly, and provide photocopies of those reports containing the requested information within 15 working days. The Commission specified that the information should cover a two-year period preceding the RTI application date. If a cumulative list of pending reserved orders was compiled in the High Court, providing a copy of that to the Appellant would also suffice.

The judgment concluded by disposing of the case accordingly and ordering free copies of the order to be given to the parties involved.