केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/143891 Mohd. Amjad Khan … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, Supreme Court of India …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 12.02.2025 Date of Decision : 12.02.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 29.04.2023 PIO replied on : 11.05.2023 First Appeal filed on : 29.05.2023 First Appellate Order on : 06.07.2023 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 08.11.2023 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

“(3) Brief Particular of information required: Please inform me and furnish the Certified Copies with attestion whether police officer and doctor have a right to sit in advocate chairs in court hall as per law.”

The CPIO, Supreme Court of India vide letter dated 11.05.2023 replied as under:-

“It is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to interpret the law or to give explanation, opine, comment or advise on matters. Your request is not covered under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and cannot be acceded to. Further, two postal orders of Rs.10/- bearing nos. "60F 214166" & "60F 214167"

are returned herewith being excess fees.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.05.2023. The FAA, Supreme Court of India vide order dated

06.07.2023 stated as under:-

“6) On due consideration, I find that reply sent by CPIO is clear and explicit. The CPIO rightly responded to the applicant stating therein that it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of CPIO, to give explanation, opinion, comment or advice of any nature.

7) The reply sent by CPIO is appropriate and does not require any further addition or further elaboration. There appears no error or illegality in the same, hence, no interference is called for.

8) Viewed in the context of what has been stated above, there appears no substance and/or merit in the appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

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

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Smt. Himani Sarad – CPIO with Shri Abhishek Raj, Advocate were present during hearing.

Both parties reiterated their respective contentions with the Respondent stating that information sought is not available in the form as sought by the Appellant, but since the data is available in public domain, the Appellant can collate the information if she does necessary research with the key words.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished appropriate response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया

Chief Information Commissioner (मख्ु य सचू ना आयक्तु )

Authenticated true copy अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत ( )

S. K. Chitkara (एस के नचटकारा)

. .

Dy. Registrar (उप - पंजीयक)

011-26186535 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil