Business
Standard: New Delhi: Friday, 08 January 2016.
The Delhi
High Court today set aside the order of its single judge bench which had
directed the Supreme Court registry to provide information to an RTI activist
regarding cases in which judgments were pending after being reserved.
A division
bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath said the single judge
verdict upholding the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC),
directing the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the apex court to
provide the information sought, cannot be sustained.
The court's
order came on an appeal filed by Supreme Court Registry against a single
judge's December 4, 2014 order by which it had been directed to provide
information to RTI activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra.
"We are
unable to agree with the conclusion of the single judge. Hence, the order under
appeal to the extent of upholding the direction of CIC in order dated August 3,
2011 not being in conformity with the provisions of the Act cannot be
sustained.
"Accordingly,
the order under appeal to the extent of the impugned direction as well as the
order of CIC is hereby set aside and the appeal shall stand allowed," the
division bench said.
Batra in his
RTI application had sought data of pending cases in which arguments have been
heard between 2007-2009 and judgements reserved.
Citing an
earlier judgement, the division bench said, "It is clear that an applicant
under the RTI Act has access to only such information that is available and
existing with the public authority, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 (of
the Act)."
"The
provisions of the Act, no doubt, empower the CIC or SIC to require the public
authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with
the provisions of the Act including by providing access to information if so
requested in a particular form," it said.
The bench
said it appeared that the provisions of the Act required only to maintain the
records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act.
"'Right
to information' under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is
held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act
under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the
information in the manner in which it is sought by applicant," the court
said while allowing the appeal of the SC registry.
The appeal,
filed through senior advocate A S Chandhiok, contended having found that the
information is not maintained by CPIO in the manner sought for, "the
single judge was not justified in upholding the direction of CIC for compiling
such information for disclosure to public in future."
The single
judge bench had on December 4, 2014 upheld the CIC order while observing that
"the period for which a case remains pending after arguments, is relevant
for any citizen who desires to know about the pendency of cases before the apex
court."
The CPIO of
the apex court had earlier rejected Batra's plea by an order dated January 12,
2010 saying the data is not maintained by the registry in the manner as sought
for by him.
His appeal
before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was also dismissed, against which he
had moved CIC which had directed CPIO to provide the information.
.JPG)
.JPG)
