AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 2022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion (C) No. 8219-8220 of 2010 and was 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Ganguli against my application dated 30.3.2010 for malafide intention, contention and vindictive attitude 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t information to be provided both under the RTI Act as well as the SCR, as erroneously held in the impugned judgment. In support of his submission, he relied upon judgment of this 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Public Authority which is prima facie inconsistent with the RTI Act. She pointed out that under Section 6(2) of the RTI Act an applicant is not to give reason for seeking the information and only nominal 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 notwit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it. SUBMISSIONS OF AMICUS CURIAE 20. Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the access to the information under SCR 1966 / SCR 2013, which includes right to inspection, search and copy is not the 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 pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that, the only recourse is to accord an intra vires interpretation to Section 22 of the RTI Act, something, which the Courts have repeatedly adopted failing which, the RTI Act would have to be held to be unconstitutional insofar 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 v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SPITE THE RESPONDENT CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED TERMINATION ORDER AND ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT LEVELLED AGAINST HIM BY WAY OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, HE NOT ONLY REAGITATED THE SAME ISSUES BUT ALSO QUESTIONED THE JUDICIAL ORDERS BY EITHER FILING 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 di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch a conclusion. 40. The Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 1 has held as under:- "13. A Judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order. The application 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 wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. This Act is, therefore, to prevail over the specified Acts and even instruments. The same, however, is only to the extent of any inconsistency between the two. Thus, where the provisions of any other law can be applied 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 sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases, different from the general law of limitation. Such a law would be a special law for the purpose of Section 29(2). The rule of limitation contained in Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 was accordingly held to be a 'special law' in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh. Similarly, a 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 WHEREA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;copy' of the document. The certification of the records is done by the Assistant Registrar/Branch Officer or any officer on behalf of the Registrar. In the opinion of this Court, in case of a statute which contemplates dissemination of information as provided for by the Explanation to Section 4 of the RTI Act then in such situation, public will have 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) the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... make any difference whatsoever. The right available to any person to seek inspection/copies of documents under Section 610 of the Companies Act is governed by the Companies (Central Government‟s) General Rules & Forms, 1956, which are statutory rules and prescribe the fees for inspection of documents, etc. in Rule 21A. The said rules being statutory in nature and 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TO THE JUDICIAL FUNCTIONING OF THE SUPREME COURT; WHEREAS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE RTI ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE. 62. Also, the judicial functioning of the Supreme Court of India is separate/independent from its administrative functioning. In the opinion of this Court, the RTI Act cannot be resorted to in case the information relates to judicial functions, which 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r disposed) to show a good cause to obtain a copy of the same. 67. Insofar as the SCR, 2013 is concerned, while Order X deals with 'inspection and search' by the party to any cause, Order XIII deals with copies of the pleadings, judgments, decrees or orders, documents and deposition. Like the SCR, 1966 the said provision also has two similar parts; one dealing with requests by a party to any cause, appeal 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s clearly a part of and/or in the course of discharge of judicial function. 72. This Court is also of the opinion that the SCR does not make sense unless they are read as indicating that, save when permitted under the Rules, documents on the Court file are not intended to be inspected or copied. That is the necessary corollary of the Rules granting only a limited right to inspect and take copies. The Chancery Division in 394 Dobson 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 tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e scheme of the rules is that, by being filed, documents do not become available for inspection or copying save to the extent that access to specified documents or classes of documents is granted either generally under the rules or by leave of the court in a particular case. The purpose underlying this restriction presumably is that if and when affidavits and other documents are used in open court, their contents will become generally available, but until then 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the declaration of law involved on an identical issue in respect of the same exemption notification. 35. It needs to be emphasised that if a Bench of a tribunal, in an identical fact situation, is permitted to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another Bench of the tribunal on an earlier occasion, that will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself. What is important is the tribunal as an institution and not the personality of the 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 C....