Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5047
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Raj Kumar Goyal, Information Commissioner
Biswajit Chowdhury – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/642255-Adjunct
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:Ms. A Deepa, Sudha Gupta, Advocate
The RTI Act provides access only to existing information held by a public authority; it does not mandate the creation of information, provide opinions, or allow for the resolution of disputes concerning the factual correctness of the information furnished by the CPIO.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f), Section 18 - Scope of RTI - Obligation of CPIO - Information held by public authority - RTI proceedings cannot be converted into dispute adjudication regarding the correctness of information. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding mediation guidelines for child custody, empanelment of mediators, and clinical records. Dissatisfied with the initial response and subsequent non-compliance, the appellant moved the Commission. The matter was also reviewed by the High Court, directing the Commission to resolve the complaint regarding incomplete compliance.
Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the CPIO had provided the available information in compliance with previous orders. It reiterated that RTI acts do not require public authorities to provide deductions, inferences, or opinions not existing in records, nor can the commission adjudicate the factual correctness of provided information.
Issues: Whether the CPIO’s response was adequate under the RTI Act and whether the Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the correctness of information provided.
Ratio Decidendi: A public authority is not required to furnish information requiring deductions, inferences, or opinions; the RTI Act provides access only to existing records, and proceedings thereunder cannot be treated as adjudication of disputes regarding the correctness or adequacy of content.
Result: The non-compliance complaint was found without merit and the case was closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and grievances regarding rti compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. current status of compliance and parties' positions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. limitations on rti scope regarding inferences and adjudicating correctness. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final disposal of the appeal. (Para 14 , 15) |
O R D E R
1. The instant Second Appeal was heard and decided by the Commission on 06.11.2024, as under:
“Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on 14.05.2023
PIO replied on 14.07.2023
First Appeal filed on 03.08.2023
First Appellate Order on 23.08.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on 30.08.2023
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
‘1) Is there any Supreme Court approved guideline on conducting the mediation related to CHILD ACCESS/CUSTODY and PARENTING? IF YES, Please provide me the soft copy.
2) Hon'ble DELHI HIGH COURT & many Hon'ble High Courts have a panel of CLINICAL/CHILD Psychologists 'who sit in the mediation effort for upto 5 sittings. Does Supreme Court Mediation Centre have such a panel? If YES, then why was not a Child Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist provided for protecting the fragile childhood of my Child at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre (SCMC) on both the dates
2.a) If NO, then what is the process of empanelment of mediators at SCMC and how is case allocation done to settle a sensitive dispute, particularly the ones involving a Child's Welfare?
3) How does SCMC ensure that the mediators are updated about the latest developments in Social Science / Psychology/and most importantly trained to sit on a dispute settlement session involving a child's welfare keeping in line with United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child' to which Government of India is also a signatory.
4) The Ld. mediator refused to invite/meet the 06 (Six) year old Child, suffering from severe/complete' Parental Alienation Syndrome with her non-custodial parent/father despite multiple requests. What is the official policy of SCMC when it comes to allowing entry of minor Children at SCMC during child custody matters and availability of family or child friendly room in the sprawling new campus?
4 a) If Children are also not allowed at SCMC, then WHY is it allowed at Mediation Centers of many Hon'ble High Courts including the DELHI HIGH COURT and not allowed at mediation center under the Apex Court of the nation?
4 b) Please provide me the track record of Ld. mediator Advocate Ms. Nina Gupta in matrimonial dispute settlement cases at the SCMC involving child custody cases over the last 3 years & her credentials in child psychology.’
The CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee vide letter dated 14.07.2023 replied as under:-
‘Point No. 1:-There is no guideline relating to child access/custody and parenting as per record available with Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Point No. 2:-No panel of "Clinical / Child Psychologists in the SCMC
Point No. 2 a:-The process of empanelment of mediators is by undergoing training of mediators through competent authority and empanelment in SCMC by the Chairman of Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee, Supreme Court of India.
Point No. 3:-It is a part of training conducted by the Competent Authority.
Point No.4:-There is no restriction for entry of children in Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Point No.4a: There is no restriction for entry of children in Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Point No. 4 b:- The Supreme Court Mediation Centre empanel the trained mediator trained by the competent authority.’
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO specifically with respect to his queries numbered as 2a), 3 and 4b), the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2023. The FAA, Supreme Court of India vide order dated 23.08.2023 held as under:-
‘It is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of India u
