के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१, मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/129151 Shakti Sankar Bagchi ….अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, Supreme Court of India … ঋितवादीगण/Respondent Date of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date of Decision : 11.03.2026 Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 18.06.2024 FA : 24.07.2024 SA : 04.09.2024 CPIO : 09.07.2024 FAO : 27.08.2024 Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 CORAM Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2024 before the PIO, Supreme Court of India, seeking the following information:

“Certain Judges of Calcutta High Court willfully overruled and disregarded several specific Judgments of Han'ble Supreme Court for the need of a particular woman in the interest of favouring the accused (Bangladeshi Singer and political party leader Mamtaj Begem).

So for dignity of the Judiciary and gravity of the Indian Constitution what exemplary action has been taken as per my petition dated 13.06.2024 regarding this Unconstitutional arbitrariness, please kindly inform me details information as per law.”

[reproduced verbatim]

2. The PIO, Supreme Court of India responded vide reply dated 09.07.2024 providing the following information:

“As ascertained from the concerned Branch of the registry, your letter petition dated 13/06/2024 was placed before the Competent Authority and the same stood filed as per verbal direction of the Competent Authority.”

[reproduced verbatim]

3. Dissatisfied with the response of the PIO, the Appellant filed online First Appeal dated

24.07.2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2024 upholding the CPIO’s reply.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in course of Hearing:

5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Mr. S K Kamesh Nookala – CPIO, Mr. Ravi Shanti Bhujhan and Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav – Advocate were present during hearing.

6. The Appellant narrated that he was aggrieved by the actions of some judges of the Calcutta High Court and hence he had filed grievance petition dated 13.06.2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He added that he was not satisfied with the response from the PIO, Supreme Court of India and urged that this Commission may direct the Respondent to take exemplary action on his grievance petition against the specific judges of the Calcutta High Court.

7. The Respondent present during hearing reiterated their contentions as already apprised by the PIO vide reply dated 09.07.2024 stating that the Appellant had been duly informed that his letter petition dated 13.06.2024 was placed before the Competent Authority and the same was filed as per verbal direction of the Competent Authority.

Decision

8. Upon perusal of records of the case, it is noted that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, had been provided to the Appellant, on the basis of available records. The Appellant contended that the Commission may direct the Respondent to take necessary action on his grievance petition dated 13.06.2024 against the judges of the Calcutta High Court on the basis of his complaint. Such direction falls outside the purview of the RTI Act and the following decisions clearly lay it down as under:

i) the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat vide decision dated 31.07.2015 in the case of Arvindlal Ambalal Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. in Special Civil Appeal No. 12223/2015 had held as under:

“…the prayers prayed for in this petition cannot be granted. There cannot be any action in a matter like the present one by the respondent authorities pursuant to an RTI application, at the instance of a person like the present petitioner. At the most, under the RTI proceedings, the petitioner can ask for some information, bu