$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 3^rd February, 2023 + W.P.(C) 9971/2019 & CM APPL. 41318/2019 EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Ms. Hina Bhargava and Mr. Pankaj, Advocates (M: 9871316969).

versus CPIO, PUBLICATIONS DIVISION MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Sr. panel Counsel with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Advocate.

(12) AND + W.P.(C) 10258/2020 EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Arpit Bhargava, Ms Hina Bhargava and Mr. Pankaj, Advocates (M: 9871316969).

versus CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Central Govt.

Counsel with Mr. C.K. and Mr. Ayush Bhatt, Advs. (M: 981155594).

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

W.P.(C) 9971/2019 & CM APPL. 41318/2019

2. The Petitioner is a death row convict who is currently in the Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur, Maharashtra. He has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Central Information Commission (hereinafter ‘CIC’) dated 13^th June, 2019. The CIC in its decision had directed the Jail W.P.(C) 9971/2019 & 10258/2020 Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, to facilitate the downloading of copies of the documents sought by the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner filed an RTI application dated 4^th February, 2019 addressed to the Central Public Information Officers (hereinafter ‘CPIO’) Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (hereinafter ‘MIB’) seeking hard copies of the following publications:

i. Courts of India (Compilation)

ii. Belief in ballot iii. Why people protest (Del.)

iv. Right to Information v. Citizen and Constitution vi. Dist. Administration (theory and practice)

vii. My book of human rights viii. National unity and integrity ix. Local governance (A global perspective)

x. A history of socialism (Del.)”

4. The claim of the Petitioner is that he is below the poverty line being a death row convict and cannot afford the price of these books. He thus prays for the same to be given free of cost to him.

5. The publication division responded and stated that the same cannot be provided free of cost to the general public. However, if the Petitioner is interested, he could contact the sales emporium in Navi Mumbai to purchase the books online. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Petitioner before the First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which also held that there was no document to prove that the applicant is below the poverty line. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the CIC also disposed of the appeal with the following directions:

W.P.(C) 9971/2019 & 10258/2020 Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed “9. In view of the above, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. However, in view of the appellant’s submission that he is in jail where he has no access to the internet, the Commission directs the Jail Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur to facilitate downloading of copies of Acts/Rules as sought vide the appellant’s RTI application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.”

6. Notice was issued in this writ petition on 16th September, 2019. A counter affidavit has been filed by the MIB to the following effect:

“i. THAT in its order, Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), Mr Sudhir Bhargava on 13.06.2019 finds that an appropriate reply has been furnished to the Petitioner by the Respondent. However, in view of the Petitioner's submission that he is in jail where he has no access to the internet, the Commission directed the Jail Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur to facilitate downloading of copies of Acts/Rules as sought vide the Petit