9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 June 5, 2011. 2. The respondent's application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short RTI Act ) dated 20th April, 2010 is reproduced hereinbelow:- Dated 20.04.2010 To, The CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, Sub: Information required under RTI Act, 2005 with due permission to get published my clear victimization in leading daily newspapers and role of courts. Sir, Details of Information required are as under:- 1. Inform me the action taken and status report of my application dated 14.09.2009 to Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and his companion all 26 Judges for struck down Article 81(b) of Educatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances 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 petition and the same have not been reproduced to avoid prolixity. PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS 4. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for petitioner contended that the CIC vide the impugned order, in Second Appeal, without considering whether the queries raised by the respondent in his RTI application were maintainable under the RTI Act, gave a general direction that all such queries should be answered by the CPIO on or before 5th June, 2011. 5. He submitted that the impugned order is contrary to prior decisions of CIC Benches of similar strength and even if the CIC was incline ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase 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 the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied: i. The two are inconsistent with each other ii. There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment. If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail. 10. Mr. Luthra lastly submitted that any interference with the work of a Judge in the discharge of his duties amounts to Contempt of Court. He contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Therefore, according to her, in accordance with Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act shall override the SCR. 16. She further submitted that whereas the RTI Act is a substantive Law and a statutory enactment, the SCR are subordinate legislation, being Rules and Regulations framed under Article 145(1) of the Constitution, which lay down the procedure to provide certified copies of documents, etc. The scope of records that can be provided under Section 2(i) of RTI Act is much wider than the records that can be provided under the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 any other law and the provisions of the RTI Act. 23. He stated that a Division Bench of this Court in Eliamma Sebastian Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors., MANU/DE/0650/2016 has dealt with the interplay of Section 22 of the RTI Act vis-a-vis Section 139 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, the latter provision dealing with Right to Information‟ under the said Co-operative Societies Act, and has held that it does not necessarily mean that any other legislation, which aims to ensure access to information with respect to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 exercising jurisdiction under Article 142, Supreme Court can altogether ignore the substantive provisions of a statute. 28. Mr. Ramesh Singh stated that Section 28 of the RTI Act provides for the competent authority to make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. He stated that the Delhi High Court had framed rules in terms of the said provisions, wherein Rule 5 provides that the information specified under Section 8 of the RTI Act shall not be disclosed, particularly such information which relates to judicial functions and duties of the Court a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.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 judgment is reported as R.S. Misra v. Union of India Others: (2012) 8 SCC 558. 35. 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. 36. 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 questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect 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 regard to 'third party information' in SCR 1966 and 2013 is similar to restriction imposed under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any inconsistency between SCR and RTI Act, regarding providing information to the third party. Both the RTI Act and the SCR enable the third party to obtain the information on showing a reasonable cause for the same. 43. Not only that, the SCR are more advantageous with regard to charges and time for delivery o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory; 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 that inconsistency between the two provisions is the produce of ingenuity and consistency between the two laws flows from imaginative understanding informed by administrative realism. The Bonus Act is a long-range remedy to produce peace; the U.P. Act provides a distress solution to produce truce. The Bonus Act adjudicates rights of parties; the U.P. provision meets an emergency situation on an administrative basis. These social projections and operational limitations of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal; NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 SCC OnLine Del 7604 in the context of accessing information from the Registrar of Trade Marks was concerned with the question whether information suomotu being made available by a public authority through means of information including intervals in fulfillment of obligations under Section 4 of the Act can be requested for under Section 6 of the Act. For detailed reasons therein, it was held that neither can information already suo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 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. This, however, in the Court's opinion does not necessarily mean that any other legislature, which aims to ensure access to information with respect to a private body (as per the RTI Act), is overr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment 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 fundamental rights governed by Part III of the Constitution. 64. In fact, the Supreme Court has framed rules with regard to dissemination of information under Article 145 of the Constitution of India, i.e. the SCR, 1966. The Rules under Article 145 of the Constitution have been framed in aid of the powers conferred to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to make such orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- Under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 548 gives to any person affected by a judgment or order passed by a criminal Court the right to have a copy of the Judge's charge to the jury or of any order or deposition or other part of the record on the terms specified in the section. Then Section 554 gives a right to Chartered High Courts to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... euchtwanger, 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 Rules. Indeed, one of the issues before me concerns which of these two sets is the relevant set. The upshot of all this is that the relevant rules regarding inspection of the court file in the present case are the Rules of the Supreme Court. Under R.S.C., Ord. 63 rr. 4 and 4A any person, on payment of the prescribed fee, was entitled to search for, inspect and take a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties 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 under the SCR is a part of judicial function, exercise of which cannot be taken away by any statute. It is settled legal position that the legislature is not competent to take away the judicial powers of the court by statutory prohibition. The legislature cannot make law to deprive the courts of their legitimate judicial functions conferred under the procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 different view in the matter - which he was entitled to hold, judicial discipline demanded that he should have recorded his disagreement with the view of Sh. A.N. Tiwari, Central Information Commissioner, and, for reasons to be recorded by him, required the constitution of a larger bench to re-examine the issue. He could not have ridden rough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
