Court sets aside CIC order on RTI queries questioning judicial orders

The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Central Information Commission's order directing the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court to provide information under the RTI Act. It held that the RTI queries seeking to question judicial orders were impermissible, emphasizing that litigants cannot seek information on a judge's decision reasons through RTI applications. The court clarified that the RTI Act does not override the Supreme Court Rules and is not applicable to judicial functions, stressing the importance of judicial discipline and the need for the CIC to refer matters to a larger bench if disagreeing with earlier decisions.

---

---

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.

---