CIC Upholds Supreme Court PIO's Decision: Information in Public Domain or Originating from Applicant Not Mandated Under RTI Act

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC), in a significant order dated January 12, 2024, dismissed a second appeal filed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Supreme Court of India. The Commission, presided over by Chief Information Commissioner Shri Heeralal Samariya , affirmed that information already available in the public domain or documents originating from the applicant himself are not required to be furnished under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

Case Background: Quest for PIL Details

The case stemmed from an RTI application dated March 13, 2021, wherein the appellant, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta , sought detailed information concerning his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) requests submitted to the Supreme Court. His queries included unique numbers, receipt dates, details of dealing officials (names, designations, contact numbers), progress dates, report submission details, and information supplied to him.

The CPIO of the Supreme Court, in a reply dated April 16, 2021, provided a point-wise response. For several queries, the CPIO stated that information was not maintained in the specific format sought but directed the appellant to the Supreme Court's website for status updates on letter-petitions and for details of officials, which are already in the public domain. Regarding a request for copies of his own letter-petitions, the CPIO, citing a previous CIC decision ( S. P. Goyal V. Income Tax ), stated they need not be furnished as the appellant was the originator.

Dissatisfied, Shri Gupta filed a First Appeal on April 23, 2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), by an order dated June 25, 2021, upheld the CPIO's reply, leading the appellant to approach the CIC with a Second Appeal on July 13, 2021.

Arguments and Commission's Observations

During the CIC hearing on January 12, 2024, the appellant was absent despite prior intimation. The Respondent, represented by Ms. Himani Sarad (CPIO) and Advocate Mr. Jitender Kumar Tripathi, reiterated that relevant information had been furnished, with most of it being accessible on the Supreme Court's official website, the links to which were provided to the appellant. They also emphasized that documents submitted by the appellant himself (sought under point 5) should have been retained by him.

The Commission, after perusing case records, observed that the appellant’s queries had been "appropriately answered by the custodian of information" and found "no legal infirmity" in the Respondent's response.

Legal Principles Relied Upon: Public Domain and Applicant's Own Documents

The CIC heavily relied on established judicial precedents to underscore its decision.

Information in the Public Domain

The Commission cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in Registrar of Companies & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Ors. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009, dated 01.06.2012] , which clarified the status of publicly accessible information under the RTI Act. The High Court held:

> "Section 2(j) of the RTI Act speaks of 'the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority....' This should mean that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act."

The CIC noted that when information is voluntarily disseminated and a procedure for its disclosure exists, it is deemed given to the public at large and is not "held" by the public authority in the context of RTI obligations.

Copies of Applicant's Own Documents

Regarding the appellant's request for copies of his own documents/requests, the Commission referred to the Madras High Court's decision in The Public Information Officer, The Registrar (Administration), High Court, Madras vs. CIC & B. Bharathi (dated 17.09.2014) . The Madras High Court had observed:

> "24. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals... they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right... Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."

Final Decision: No Intervention Required

Concluding its order, the Chief Information Commissioner Shri Heeralal Samariya stated:

> "In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter."

This decision reinforces the understanding that the RTI Act is not intended to burden public authorities with requests for information already accessible through public channels or for documents that are the applicant's own creations.