9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 2022 - HC - Indian LawsTermination from the post of Postgraduate Teacher (Chemistry) in KVS - sexual harassment - constitutional validity of Article 81(b) of Education Code of KVS - Validity of judicial orders - questioning judicial orders by either filing letters on the administrative side or applications under the RTI Act - HELD THAT - From the facts on record, it is apparent that letters had been written by the respondent to the Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court when they were seized of the respondent's case in their judicial capacity - It seems strange to this Court that despite the respondent challenging the impugned termination order and allegations of sexual harassment by way of legal proceedings, he not only re-agitated the same issues but also questioned the judicial orders by either filing letters on the administrative side or applications under the RTI Act. In fact, the respondent even sought quashing of Article 81(b) of Education Code of KVS as unconstitutional by way of applications on the administrative side and wanted to know the outcome of such applications under RTI Act This is all the more unusual as the respondent is well conversant with the judicial process inasmuch as he has filed more than double digit judicial proceedings before various forums and courts till date. This Court is of the view that where there is no information to be given or the applicant is seeking non-existent information or where the query is inherently absurd or bordering on contempt, like in the present case, the CIC should not have directed the petitioner to supply information and that too without considering whether the queries raised were maintainable under the RTI Act. Since both the RTI Act, 2005 and the SCR aim at dissemination of information, there is no inherent inconsistency, other than the procedural inconsistency at the highest between the RTI Act and the SCR. In the present case, maintaining two parallel machinery one under SCR and the other under the RTI Act, would clearly lead to duplication of work and unnecessary expenditure, in turn leading to clear wastage of human resources as well as public funds. Also, request for hard copies of information (as contemplated under Section 7 of the RTI Act) in respect of those information which are already available and accessible in the public domain, under the mechanism contemplated under the SCR, will further lead to unnecessary diversion of resources and conflict with other public interest which includes optimal use of limited fiscal resources. The RTI Act does not provide for an appeal against a Supreme Court judgment/order that has attained finality. It is clarified that queries under the RTI Act would be maintainable to elicit information like how many leaves a Hon ble Judge takes or with regard to administrative decision an Hon ble Judge takes; but no query shall lie with regard to a judicial decision/function. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court of India to provide information under the RTI Act. 2. Inconsistency between the Supreme Court Rules (SCR) and the Right to Information (RTI) Act. 3. Applicability of the RTI Act to judicial functions of the Supreme Court. 4. Judicial discipline and the overruling of previous CIC decisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the CIC Order: The petitioner challenged the CIC's order dated 11th May 2011, which directed the CPIO of the Supreme Court to answer the respondent's RTI queries. The petitioner argued that the CIC did not consider whether the queries were maintainable under the RTI Act. The court found that the respondent's RTI application sought to question judicial orders, which is not permissible under any law. A judge speaks through judgments or orders, and no litigant can seek information through an RTI application regarding the reasons behind a judge's decision. The court concluded that the CIC should not have directed the petitioner to supply information without considering the maintainability of the queries under the RTI Act. 2. Inconsistency between SCR and RTI Act: The petitioner argued that the SCR, framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, provides a mechanism for obtaining judicial records, which should prevail over the RTI Act. The court held that there is no inherent inconsistency between the SCR and the RTI Act, as both aim at disseminating information. The non-obstante clause under Section 22 of the RTI Act does not imply an overriding effect over all statutes but only in cases of inherent inconsistency. Since both the RTI Act and SCR aim at providing information, the RTI Act does not prevail over the SCR. 3. Applicability of RTI Act to Judicial Functions: The court emphasized that the judicial functioning of the Supreme Court is separate from its administrative functioning. The dissemination of information under the SCR is part of the judicial function, which cannot be taken away by any statute. The RTI Act is applicable to administrative functions but not to judicial decisions or functions. The court clarified that queries under the RTI Act would be maintainable for administrative decisions but not for judicial decisions. 4. Judicial Discipline and Overruling of Previous CIC Decisions: The court agreed with the petitioner's argument that the CIC, by the impugned order, could not have overruled earlier decisions of coordinate benches of the same strength. Judicial discipline required that if the CIC disagreed with the earlier settled legal position, it should have referred the matter to a larger bench. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Gammon India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, emphasizing the importance of institutional integrity and judicial discipline. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the CIC's order dated 11th May 2011. The court held that the CIC should not have directed the CPIO to answer the respondent's queries without considering their maintainability under the RTI Act. The court also clarified that the RTI Act does not override the SCR and is not applicable to judicial functions of the Supreme Court. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and the need for the CIC to refer matters to a larger bench if it disagrees with earlier decisions.
|
