9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... represented by a lawyer. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:- "In view of the foregoing arguments, this Commission respectfully disagrees with the decision of the then Chief Information Commissioner that the PIO, Supreme Court may choose to deny the information sought under the RTI Act and ask an applicant to apply for information under Order XII of the SC Rules. This Bench further rules that all citizens have the right to access information under Section 3 of the RTI Act and PIOs shall provide the information sought to the citizens, subject always to the provisions of the RTI Act only. Where there are methods of giving information by any public authority which were in existence before the advent of the RTI Act, the citizen may insist on invoking the provisions of the RTI Act to obtain the information. It is the citizen's prerogative to decide under which mechanism, i.e. under the method prescribed by the public authority or the RTI Act, she would like to obtain the information. The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as available on record in relation to queries 1 to 7 to the Appellant before J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itude of respondents regularly. 7. Inform me the action taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on application of my wife Mrs. Rampati Misra against clear victimization of her husband Shri R.S. Misra before 7 days of retirement without regular inquiry and report of summary inquiry to be provided from the authorities of KVS on petition dated 26.3.2010 in the matter of RS Misra Vs. UOI & Ors. 8. Requisite fee Rs. 10.00 vide IPO No. 86E 954536 dated 10.09.2010 enclosed. 9. Inform me the law under which Tribunal, High Court and also Apex Court dutifully dismiss the case without examining facts, grounds and circumstances of alleged allegations from Manipuri girls through rumoured bad conduct fraudulent Manipuri lady Principal Mrs. Radharani Devi openly supported by KVS, CBI and CVC without enquiry. R.S. MISRA APPLICANT S-93, NEW PALAM VIHAR PHASE-I GURGAON-122017" (emphasis supplied) 3. Though the respondent informed this Court that he was not in possession of any of the letters referred to, by him, in his RTI application, yet the petitioner had placed on record the letters dated 22nd March, 2010 and 26th March, 2010. Both the said letters read like a writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court in Registrar of Companies and Others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Another, (2017) 172 Comp Cas 412 (Delhi). 8. He also pointed out that the Karnataka High Court in State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar, High Court of Karnataka Vs. N. Anbarasan (ILR 2003 KAR 3890) has held that as some of the information sought in the said case was available under Karnataka High Court Act and Rules made thereunder, it was not open for the respondent to ask for copies of the same under the RTI Act. He stated that the information in respect to Item Nos. 6 to 17 in the said case related to Writ Petition No.17935/2006 and as the respondent was a party to the said proceeding, it was open to the respondent to file an application, in accordance with the Rules, for certified copies of the order sheets or the relevant documents. 9. According to Mr. Luthra, the non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act did not mean an implied repeal over all statutes. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 81 wherein it has been held that "the general rule to be followed in case of conflict between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fee has to be paid. According to her, the same is not so under Rule 2, Order XII of the SCR, as good cause has to be shown. Hence, she submitted that purpose and reasons for seeking information are called for under the SCR. 14. She contended that the RTI Act provides for a specific time period in which information is to be provided. According to her, a procedure for appeal is provided and penalty has been prescribed in case information is not provided. She stated that the SCR does not provide any such procedure. She also stated that under the RTI Act the information can be denied to an applicant only under Sections 8 and 9. However, in the present matter the information had been declined to the applicant without taking recourse either to Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and hence the same was against the statutory mandate. 15. Ms. Deepali Gupta submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act being the non-obstante clause specifically provides that the said Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information covered / contemplated under the provisions of RTI Act, as Section 2(j) of the RTI Act is concerned with only that information which is under the exclusive control of the „public authority‟. He submitted that this Court in Registrar of Companies Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg (supra) has interpreted Section 2(j) of the RTI Act in the said fashion. 21. He stated that even though a full Bench of this Court in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2010) 166 DLT 305 defines the meaning of the words "held by" or "under the control of" in the aforesaid Section 2(j), yet it does not deal with the aspect of exclusive control as has been dealt with in the case of Registrar of Companies Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg (supra). 22. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act does not contemplate overriding those legislations, which aim to ensure access to information. In fact, according to him, the said provision contemplates harmonious existence with the enactments which, like the RTI Act, also provide for dissemination of information. He submitted that Section 22 comes into operation only in case of inconsistency between a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it affects the functioning of the Courts in the discharge of its judicial functions under the SCR 1966/SCR 2013. 26. He submitted that the Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati Vs. The State of Bombay, (1961) 1 SCR 497 harmonized the power of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, to order suspension of sentence with Order XXI Rule 5 of the SCR, to hold that the said power of the Governor does not deal with suspension of the sentence during the time when the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court adopted the said approach on the ground that Article 161 will not operate when the matter is sub-judice, as the same can effectively interfere with the judicial function and therefore avoidance of such a possible conflict will incidentally prevent any invasion of the rule of law, which is the very foundation of the Constitution. 27. He also submitted that the aforesaid view in Nanavati's case was affirmed in SCBA vs. UOI, (1998) 4 SCC 409, by holding that it is one thing to say that "prohibitions or limitations in a statute" cannot come in the way of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, but quite a different thing to say that while exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G LETTERS ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OR APPLICATIONS UNDER THE RTI ACT 32. Having perused the paper book this Court finds that the respondent was holding the post of Postgraduate Teacher (Chemistry) in KVS and his services were terminated by the Commissioner of KVS under Article 81(b) of the Education Code on 05th November, 2003. The respondent challenged the order of termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.996 of 2006 which was dismissed. Writ petition No.3902 of 2008 before the High Court and SLP (C) No.8219 of 2010 before the Supreme Court filed by the respondent were also dismissed. 33. Thereafter the respondent sought information by way of an RTI application dated 20th April, 2010 as to why his SLP(C) 8219-8220 of 2010 had been dismissed and it was contended in the said application that the SLP had been decided against the principles of natural justice. The Review Petitions Nos. 963-964 of 2010 were also dismissed by the Apex Court on 15th July, 2010. 34. Subsequently, the respondent's other Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order dated 5th February, 2010 of the High Court in CM No.14140/2009 in WP(C) 3902/2008 was allowed and the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation 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 judicial officers concerned 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." 41. Consequently, 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. THERE IS NO INHERENT INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN SCR AND RTI ACT. BOTH ENABLE THE THIRD PARTY TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION ON SHOWING A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAME. 42. The restriction with reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied harmoniously, without any conflict, the question of repugnancy would not arise." 47. The non-obstante clause under Section 22 of the RTI Act does not mean an implied repeal over all statutes, but only an overriding provision in case of an inherent inconsistency. The Apex Court in Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P, (1979) 2 SCC 88 has held as under:- "23. ...."Inconsistent", according to Black's Legal Dictionary, means "mutually repugnant or contradictory; contrary, the one to the other so that both cannot stand, but the acceptance or establishment of the one implies the abrogation or abandonment of the other". So we have to see whether mutual coexistence between Section 34 of the Bonus Act and Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act is impossible. If they relate to the same subject-matter, to the same situation, and both substantially overlap and are co-extensive and at the same time so contrary and repugnant in their terms and impact that one must perish wholly if the other were to prevail at all - then, only then, are they inconsistent. In this sense, we have to examine the two provisions. Our conclusion, based on the reasoning which we will presently indicate, is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law which may be a law of general applicability is yet a local law if, its applicability is confined to a particular area instead of generally the whole country......" 51. Consequently, it is incorrect to state that the RTI Act would prevail over the SCR. IF ANY INFORMATION CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE MECHANISM PROVIDED UNDER ANOTHER STATUTE, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT CANNOT BE RESORTED TO. 52. The preamble of the RTI Act reads as under:- An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic; AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed; AND WHEREAS revelation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain such information. 56. There are other provisions of the RTI Act which support the said position, namely, Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) which contemplate that if an information is disseminated then the public will have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. In the present case, the dissemination of information under the provisions of the SCR squarely fits into the definition of "disseminated" as provided in the aforesaid Explanation to Section 7(9) and the Preamble contemplate a bar for providing information if it „disproportionally diverts the resources of the public authority‟. 57. Section 42 also provides that it shall be constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of sub- Section (1) thereof and to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications including intervals so that the public has minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. 58. A Division Bench of this Court in Prem Lata CPIO Trade Marks Registry, Delhi Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors., 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific in their application, do not get overridden by the rules framed under the RTI Act with regard to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature, and apply to all kinds of applications made under the RTI Act to seek information. It would also be complete waste of public funds to require the creation and maintenance of two parallel machineries by the ROC - one under Section 610 of the Companies Act, and the other under the RTI Act to provide the same information to an applicant. It would lead to unnecessary and avoidable duplication of work and consequent expenditure. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 37. ....Nobody can go overboard or loose ones equilibrium and sway in one direction or assume an extreme position either in favour of upholding the right to information granted by the RTI Act, or to deny the said right." 61. A Division Bench of this Court in Eliamma Sebastian Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. (supra) has similarly held as under:- "17. The RTI Act is aimed at bringing within its ambit the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h can be challenged by way of an appeal or revision or review or by any other legal proceeding. 63. The Supreme Court in Riju Prasad Sarma v. State of Assam: (2015) 9 SCC 461 has held that when the High Court or the Supreme Court acts in its administrative capacity, then only it is considered to fall within the definition of "State" within the meaning of Article 12. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "68. Hence, in accordance with such judgments holding that the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction and for want of requisite governmental control, judiciary cannot be a State under Article 12, we also hold that while acting on the judicial side the courts are not included in the definition of the State. Only when they deal with their employees or act in other matters purely in administrative capacity, the courts may fall within the definition of the State for attracting writ jurisdiction against their administrative actions only. In our view, such a contextual interpretation must be preferred because it shall promote justice, especially through impartial adjudication in matters of protection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al or matter and the other dealing with requests by a person who is not a party to the appeal or matter. Further, Rule 7 of the Order XIII deals with documents of any confidential nature and the restrictions regarding obtaining copies of the same. 68. Since under Order V Rule 37 under the SCR, 2013, the application of a person who is not a party to the case, appeal or matter, for inspection or grant or search for grant of copies, is exercised by a Single Judge sitting in Chamber, the obtaining of documents/inspection would fall within the judicial functioning of the Supreme Court and thus such information would be available under the SCR framed under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. 69. The right/access to the information under the SCR which includes right of inspection, search of copies would all be judicial function of the Supreme Court, therefore such information would not be covered or contemplated under the RTI Act. 70. In Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani Vs. Sir Hugh Golding Cocke, AIR 1942 Bomb. 246 the Bombay High Court has held that the discretion to allow inspection of the record of the Court has to be exercised judicially. The relevant portion of the aforesaid j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obson and Another Vs. Hastings and Others, [1992] Ch. 394 has held as under:- "This is a committal application with an unusual background. It concerns the unauthorised inspection of a document on a court file, and the subsequent publication of information obtained from that inspection. The respondents are Mr. Max Hastings, the editor of "The Daily Telegraph", Miss Antonia Feuchtwanger, a journalist employed by "The Daily Telegraph", and the Daily Telegraph Plc. On 31 August and 3 September 1991 articles written by Miss. Feuchtwanger appeared in "The Daily Telegraph" newspaper. Both articles referred to a report submitted to the High Court by Mr. Burns, deputy official receiver, in proceedings brought by the official receiver...... With that introduction I turn first to the legal framework: the provisions in the rules of court relating to inspection of documents on the file maintained by the court for disqualification proceedings. Unfortunately, the history of this matter has been clouded a little by some confusion about which of two sets of rules is applicable to inspection of documents filed in disqualification proceedings: the Rules of the Supreme Court, or the Insolvency Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the filing of documents in court, as required by the court rules for the purpose of litigation, shall not of itself render generally available what otherwise would not be. Many documents filed in court never see the light of day in open court. For example, when proceedings are disposed of by agreement before trial. In that event, speaking generally, the parties are permitted to keep from the public gaze documents such as affidavits produced in preparation for a hearing which did not take place. Likewise with affidavits produced for interlocutory applications which are disposed of in chamber. Again, there are certain, very limited, classes of proceedings, such as those relating to minors, which are normally not heard in open court. Much of the object sought to be achieved by a hearing in camera in these cases would be at serious risk of prejudice if full affidavits were openly available once filed. 73. Consequently, the SCR would be applicable with regard to the judicial functioning of the Supreme Court; whereas for the administrative functioning of the Supreme Court, the RTI Act would be applicable and information could be provided under it. The dissemination of information u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members constituting it. If a Bench of the Tribunal wishes to take a view different from the one taken by the earlier Bench, propriety demands that it should place the matter before the President of the Tribunal so that the case is referred to a larger Bench, for which provision exists in the Act itself. 77. A Co-ordinate Bench of this on an identical question of law, as involved in the present case, passed strictures against the same learned CIC, who passed the present impugned order. The relevant portion of the observations of the co-ordinate Bench in Registrar of Companies v. Dharmender Kumar Garg (supra), are reproduced hereinbelow:- "56. In the present case, the Central Information Commissioner Mr. Shailesh Gandhi has also demonstrated complete lack of judicial discipline while rendering the impugned decisions. By no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the earlier decisions were not on the point. Particularly, the decision rendered by Sh. A.N. Tiwari in F. CIC/T/A/2007/0012 dated 12.04.2007 directly deals with the very same issue, and is an exhaustive, and detailed and considered decision. If the Central Information Commissioner Sh. Shailesh Gandhi had a differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
