Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, J.
The Registrar, Supreme Court of India – Petitioner
Versus
R. S. Misra – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3530 OF 2011
Decided On : 21-11-2017
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 145 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Order 5 Rule 37 - Right to Information Act, Sections 4(2), (3), (4), 6 - Inspection of Court file - Right to information - Judicial function - Scope of - Application of a person who is not a party to the case - Inspection or grant or search for grant of copies - Obtaining of documents would fall within the judicial functioning of the Supreme Court - Such information would be available under the SCR framed under Article 145 of the Constitution of India - Held, Right to the information under the SCR includes right of inspection, search of copies would all be judicial function of the Supreme Court - Such information would not be covered or contemplated under the RTI Act.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 145 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Order 5 Rule 37 - Right to Information Act, Sections 4(2), (3), (4), 6 - RTI Act - SCR - Application of - SCR would be applicable with regard to the judicial functioning of the Supreme Court - RTI Act would be applicable and information could be provided under it - Dissemination of information under the SCR is a part of judicial function, exercise of which cannot be taken away by any statute - Legislature is not competent to take away the judicial powers of the court by statutory prohibition - RTI Act does not provide for an appeal against a Supreme Court judgment that has attained finality.
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 4(2), (3), (4), 6 - Judicial information - Information through RTI - Scope of - Decision of the CIC was challenged - CIC allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India to answer the queries raised by the respondent - Respondent sought information by way of an RTI - Order was not Challenged of his termination or sexual harassment - Judicial orders questioned by either filing letters on the administrative side or applications under the RTI Act - Held, no litigant can be allowed to seek information through an RTI application or a letter on the administrative side as to why and for what reasons the Judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion - A Judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion.
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 4(2), (3), (4), 6 - Judicial information - Information through RTI - Scope of - Decision of the CIC was challenged - CIC allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India to answer the queries raised by the respondent - Respondent sought information by way of an RTI - Order was not Challenged of his termination or sexual harassment - Judicial orders questioned by either filing letters on the administrative side or applications under the RTI Act - Held, no litigant can be allowed to seek information through an RTI application or a letter on the administrative side as to why and for what reasons the Judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion - A Judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion.
MANMOHAN, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the decision of the Central Information Commission (for short "CIC"), dated 11th May, 2011 passed in Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000237. The CIC vide the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (for short "CPIO") to answer the queries 1 to 7 raised by the said respondent in his application dated 20 April, 2010. The CIC also directed the CPIO to provide information pertaining to a judicial matter in which the respondent himself was a party, i.e. in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8219-8220 of 2010 and was represented by a lawyer. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced here-in-below:-
"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 record in relation to queries 1 to 7 to the Appellant before June 5, 2011."
2. The respondent's application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "RTI Act") dated 20th April, 2010 is reproduced here-in-below:-
"Dated 20.04.2010
To,
The CPIO,
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi,
Sub:
Information required under RTI Act, 2005 with due permission to get published my clear victimization in leading daily newspapers and role of courts.
Sir,
Details of Information required are as under:-
1. Inform me the action taken and status report of my application dated 14.09.2009 to Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and his companion all 26 Judges for struck down Article 81(b) of Education Code of Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan Unconstitutional, unguided and ultra virus and void.
2. Inform me the action taken and status report of my letters dated 25.2.2010 to each Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court for struck down of Article 81(b) of EC of KVS and its misuse in an arbitrary manner with ulterior motives being unconstitutional null and void without regular inquiry.
3. Inform me the action taken and status report of my application dated 22.3.2010 for deprivation of natural justice of W.P.(C) and SLP dismissed by all the courts without providing complete legible, readable typed copies of complete Inquiry Report and 69 (sixty nine) pages of the statement of the witnesses vide decision given by CIC and upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dispensing regularing inquiry rightly.
4. Inform me the action taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Ganguli on my application dated 05.03.2010 in the matter of RS Misra Vs. UOI & Ors. for natural justice and malafidy of the case SLP (C) Nos. 8219-8220 of 2010 unheard.
5. Inform me the action taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Ganguli against clear cut victimization by authorities of KVS without any evidence specific allegations, time, date and period on my application dated 15.3.2010 and without providing opportunities of natural justice. SLP (C) Nos. 8219-8220 of 2010 unheard.
6. Inform me the action taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
