Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 3236
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Registrar, Supreme Court of India - Appellant
Versus
Commodore Lokesh K.Batra & Ors. - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No. 13398/2011
Decided On : 04-12-2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. K. P. S. Kohli, Mr. Satyam Thareja and Ms. Neha Singhj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pranav Sachdeva for Mr. Prashant Bhushan.
Public authorities must provide available information in the form sought unless it disproportionately diverts resources, and the CIC has the power to issue directions for maintenance of records to facilitate access to important and relevant information.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Disclosure of Information - Act Section 2(f), 7(9), 19(8)(a)(iv) - The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'information' under Section 2(f) of the Act, the obligation of public authorities to provide information in the form sought under Section 7(9), and the power of the CIC to issue directions for maintenance and management of records under Section 19(8)(a)(iv). The court held that while public authorities are not obligated to create, collect, or collate non-available information, they must provide available information in the form sought unless it disproportionately diverts resources or is detrimental to record preservation. The CIC has the power to issue directions for maintenance of records to facilitate access to important and relevant information.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the CIC directing the Supreme Court to provide information regarding pending cases with arguments heard and orders reserved. The CPIO rejected the RTI applications, stating that the data was not maintained as sought. The CIC allowed the appeals, directing the disclosure and compilation of the information.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information sought was available with the petitioner and should be provided in the form sought unless it disproportionately diverts resources. The CIC had the jurisdiction to issue directions for maintenance of records to facilitate access to important and relevant information.
Issues: The key issue was whether the CIC can issue a direction for disclosure of information in a form not maintained by a public authority and whether it could give a direction for compiling such information and its disclosure in the future.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that public authorities are not obligated to create, collect, or collate non-available information, but must provide available information in the form sought unless it disproportionately diverts resources. The CIC has the power to issue directions for maintenance of records to facilitate access to important and relevant information.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the court upheld the CIC's direction for maintenance of records to ensure that information regarding pending judgments is available with the petitioner in the future.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.:--
1. The petitioner impugns an order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter the ‘CIC’) directing the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court (hereafter ‘CPIO’) to provide information to respondent No. 1 regarding pending cases which had been heard and orders reserved. The CIC had further directed that if the information sought was centrally not available, the necessary arrangement be made in future for compiling such information and disclosing the same in public domain.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.2009, respondent No. 1 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the ‘Act’) with CPIO seeking the following information:-
“(a) Total number of cases pending for judgements where ‘Arguments have been heard prior to 31 December 2007 and Judgements are reserved’.
(b) Total number of cases pending for judgments where ‘Arguments have been heard between period 01 January 2008 and 31 December 2008 and Judgments are reserved’.
© Total number of cases pending for judgements where ‘Arguments have been heard between period 01 January 2009 and 15 December 2009 and Judgements are reserved’.”
3. On 22.12.2009, respondent No. 1 filed another application under the Act seeking the following information:-
“Kindly provide me information under RTI Act 2005, In respect of those cases where ‘Arguments have been heard prior to 22. December 2009 and Judgements are reserved’ in the Supreme Court. In this context following information is requested in respect of each such case.
(a) Case Number.
(b) Case Type.
© Date the Case was first admitted.
(d) Date when Judgement was reserved.”
4. By an order dated 12.01.2010, CPIO rejected the application dated 17.12.2009 and informed respondent No. 1 that the data is not maintained by the registry in the manner as sought for by him. The CPIO further advised that for all the information with regard to the matters sub judice before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and the Supreme Court of India, Practice & Procedure ‘A Handbook of Information’- which are also available on the website of the Supreme Court of India- may be referred. A similar order dated 22.01.2010 was passed by CPIO in response to the RTI application dated 22.12.2009.
5. Respondent No. 1 filed separate appeals (Appeal No. 74/2010 & Appeal No. 73/2010) before the First Appellate Authority (hereafter ‘FAA’) challenging the orders dated 12.01.2010 and 22.01.2010 respectively. By a common order dated 15.03.2010, FAA dismissed both the appeals. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, filed separate appeals before the CIC challenging the order of FAA dated 15.03.2010. The CIC allowed the appeals, by the impugned order.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended:-
6.1 That the information that can be disclosed or can be directed to be disclosed under the Act is the information which exists and is held by the public authorities in material form and no directions can be issued by the authorities under the Act to the public authorities to create, hold and maintain the information in any other manner. The Act does not cast any obligation on any public authority to collate such non-available information for the purpose of furnishing it to an RTI Applicant. Reliance was placed on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: (2011) 8 SCC 497.
6.2 That the powers under sub-section (8)(a)(iv) of Section 19 of the Act cannot be stretched for creation of new record and the words ‘maintenance and management’ under the said provision relates to the records which are available and cannot be interpreted in a manner to include creation of information.
6.3 That the impugned order impinges upon the power entrusted upon the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution of India to make suitable rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court by directing the authority to maintain the records in a particular manner. He submitted that the impug
