The Hindu: Chennai: Tuesday, June 13, 2017.
In a
significant ruling, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission has permitted a
petitioner to inspect registers maintained by the district and its subordinate
courts, thereby setting aside the contention that the Madras High Court alone
had to the right to do so.
The
Commission made the decision while disposing of the plea of Giles Ravichandran
who petitioned the Public Information Commissioner (PIO), Office of the
Principal District Judge, Madurai, to “inspect the register containing the list
of succession original petitions under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for
1991 and 1992 of the District Court, Sub-Court and Munsif Court at Madurai.”
In his reply,
the PIO rejected the request on the grounds that the Madras High Court alone
was the competent authority to inspect the registers of the District Court, and
the Principal District Judge, Madurai, was the competent authority to inspect
the registers of the Sub-Court and the Munsif Court at Madurai.
The
petitioner was asked to submit an application under the Right to Information
Act to the Registrar-General of the Madras High Court and obtain permission if
he still intended to inspect the registers. “No individual has any right to
inspect the registers, as seeking in your petition under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, without the permission of the Madras High Court,” the
PIO said. Claiming that an appeal sent to the Registrar-General of the High
Court did not elicit any response, the petitioner filed his second appeal
before the Information Commission.
State Chief
Information Commissioner K. Ramanujam ruled that the PIO’s stand was not
sustainable. “Under Section 2(j) of the Act, right to information includes the
right of inspection of work, documents and records. The term ‘inspection’ here
means perusal, and it is not in the nature of an inspection by a superior
official.”
He said the
rejection of the petitioner’s request was not sustainable. Requesting the PIO
to grant permission for perusal of the records mentioned by the petitioner, Mr.
Ramanujam said the petitioner might also be allowed to take notes and copies of
specific pages/documents requested by him.
Mr. Ramanujam
said the perusal should be done under the supervision of the PIO without
disturbing the functioning of the office. The order should be complied with
before June 15.