Justify your RTI with Reasons : Find complete text of High Court order Here.
----------------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.9.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.26781 of 2013
& M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Public Information Officer,
The Registrar (Administration),
High Court, Madras. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Central Information Commission,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Room No.306, 2nd Floor, "B" Wing,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.
2. Mr.B.Bharathi .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records
in Case No.CIC/SM/C/2012/900378 to 384, CIC/SM/C/2012/000600, 601, 970
to 975, 993 to 1000, 1120 to 1131, 1133, 1134, 1145 to 1152, 1162,
1163, CIC/SM/A/2012/900540, CIC/SM/A/2012/000955, 1558, 1776 to 1778
(53 cases) etc., order dated 23.1.2013 passed by the first respondent
and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
For respondents: R-1 - Central Information Commission
Mr.B.Bharathi - R-2 (party-in-person)
(The Writ Petition was reserved for orders on 1.9.2014)
ORDER
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J
The Public Information Officer (Registrar (Administration) ), High
Court, Madras is the writ petitioner. This Writ Petition is filed
challenging the order passed by the Central Information Commission,
New Delhi (first respondent herein), dated 23.1.2013, whereby the
first respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish the
information as sought for by the second respondent herein, insofar as
six appeals are concerned. In respect of other 47 complaints are
concerned, the first respondent-Commission directed the petitioner to
send statement of particulars regarding those complaints.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The second respondent, a native of Puducherry, has made several
applications/queries under the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act') to the Madras
High Court, seeking information on various aspects. Out of several
such applications/queries made by the second respondent, the first
respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish the information as
sought for by the second respondent in respect of the following six
applications/queries:
(i) Details of action taken on his complaint, dated 1.6.2011 against
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the details of
enquiry conducted thereon;
(ii) Details of recruitment rules for the post of Registrar General of
High Court, details of constitution of Selection Committee,
recommendation made by individual Judges and other information
regarding the selection of various individuals as Registrar Generals;
(iii) Details of action taken on earlier application, dated 31.10.2011
regarding the appointment and selection of Registrar General;
(iv) Copies of several petitions/appeals filed by the second
respondent and also the file notings made therein;
(v) Copy of earlier complaint, dated 10.12.2011 filed by the second
respondent against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
and the action taken thereon;
(vi) Information as to what action taken regarding the complaint filed
by the second respondent, dated 20.9.2011 against inclusion of one
Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan as Advocate in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010 and the
file notings thereon.
3. Out of those six queries made by the second respondent, queries (i)
and (v) relate to the complaint made by the second respondent against
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Queries (ii) and
(iii) relate to the selection and appointment of Registrar General of
High Court.
4. Insofar as query (i) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner
that on receipt of the application, dated 5.12.2011 from the second
respondent, the petitioner, through communication, dated 20.1.2012,
asked the second respondent to come for inspection of necessary files.
It is the further case of the petitioner that though the inspection
was fixed on 30.1.2012, the second respondent sought time and
accordingly, on 1.2.2012, the second respondent was permitted to
peruse the files regarding the action taken. However, in the meantime,
the second respondent filed an appeal to the Registrar General of High
Court complaining non-furnishing of information and the said appeal
was dismissed by the Registrar General on 6.11.2012 by relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.27734 of 2012.
5. Insofar as query (v) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner
that the second respondent was already informed through communication,
dated 28.3.2012 that his complaint, dated 10.12.2011 has been closed.
However, the second respondent filed appeal to the Registrar General
of this Court, wherein, an order came to be passed on 12.6.2012,
holding that nothing further was to be done in this matter, as the
second respondent was already informed on 28.3.2012 itself about the
closing of his complaint, dated 10.12.2011.
6. Insofar as query (ii) is concerned, it is the case of the
petitioner that the request of the second respondent was rejected by
the petitioner on 25.11.2011 on the ground that earlier petition on
similar lines, was rejected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
However, the second respondent filed an appeal before the Registrar
General and thereafter, filed further appeal before the first
respondent herein, who in turn, by order dated 28.9.2012, directed
furnishing of the required information. Thereafter, on 8.11.2012, the
petitioner furnished query-wise information to the second respondent,
stating that there are no recruitment rules for the post of Registrar
General and that there is no Selection Committee for that purpose.
Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that insofar as the query
regarding the Registrar General is concerned, the required information
has been supplied by the petitioner to the second respondent.
7. Insofar as query (iii) is concerned, it is the case of the
petitioner that all the required information as pointed out in respect
of query (ii), had been furnished to the second respondent on
8.11.2012.
8. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, it is the case of the
petitioner that the complaint petitions/queries made by the second
respondent must be available with him, since they are the complaint
petitions/queries made by himself and wherever those documents are
available, the information was furnished to the second respondent,
through proceedings dated 23.4.2012.
9. Insofar as query (vi) is concerned, it is the case of the
petitioner that his request has been put up along with the case
bundles in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2012, since the matter is sub-judice
and pending before the High Court.
10. Not being satisfied with the intimation/information furnished by
the petitioner in respect of the abovesaid six cases, the second
respondent approached the first respondent-Commission by way of Second
Appeals. Those six Second Appeals were taken along with 47 complaints
filed by the second respondent himself for disposal by the first
respondent.
11. After hearing both sides, the first respondent-Commission passed
an order on 23.1.2013 and directed the petitioner herein to prepare a
tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations
received from the second respondent insofar as those 47 complaints
received by the first respondent are concerned and further directed
the petitioner to indicate with the particulars about the current
status of the action taken in those complaints and send the statement
to the first respondent-Commission within 20 working days from the
receipt of the order. Insofar as six Second Appeals are concerned, the
first respondent-Commission directed the petitioner to provide the
desired information sought for by the second respondent by way of
attested photocopies of the relevant documents including the file
notings wherever available and any correspondence made. The first
respondent-Commission further ordered that in case concerning the
appointment of the Registrar General, the petitioner must provide the
photocopy of the file notings, if any, from the file in which the
proposal for appointment of the Registrar General had been processed
and finalised. Likewise, the first respondent-Commission ordered to
provide the photocopy of the relevant file notings, if any, from the
file in which the second respondent's complaint against the
appointment of the Registrar General was dealt with. In respect of the
appointment of Public Prosecutors since 2006, the first respondent
directed the petitioner to provide the photocopies of the letters
containing the concurrence or otherwise of the High Court about
specific individuals proposed by the State Government. After making
such an order, the first respondent has also expressed a word of
caution on the action of the second respondent. It is specifically
observed by the first respondent that the disclosure of information
must be commensurate and in conformity with the smooth functioning of
the public authorities and this particular case shows how a single
individual can overload a public authority and divert its resources
rather disproportionately while seeking information. Sending numerous
complaints and representations and then following those with the RTI
applications, cannot be the way to redress such grievances, is the
other observation made by the first respondent. Accordingly, the first
respondent-Commission disposed of six Second Appeals and postponed the
proceedings in respect of other 47 complaints for receiving the
statement from the petitioner.
12. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
order of the first respondent-Commission on the following grounds:
(a) Insofar as the query relating to the appointment of the Registrar
General of the High Court is concerned, the petitioner has already
informed the second respondent that there were no special recruitment
rules for the post of Registrar General and there was no Selection
Committee for making such recruitment. Likewise, in respect of the
query concerning the action taken on the complaint against the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the second respondent was
informed that no action was taken and the matter was closed.
(b) The information wherever available and permissible, had been
provided to the second respondent. However, the very attitude of the
second respondent in sending 53 applications to the High Court seeking
information on various issues, shows that his aim is to derail the
administration by misusing the RTI Act provisions and bring it to
embarrassment and ridicule.
(c) The State Information Commission, by order dated 2.6.2012 in Order
No.20854/A/2012, had also passed strictures in another proceedings
against the offensive intimidatory act of the second respondent
herein. The selection to the post of Registrar General which is a
sensitive post in the administrative set up of the High Court, is not
a matter to be discussed in public domain, especially through the
information sought for under the RTI Act. The post is essentially one
of trust reposed by the Honourable Chief Justice of High Court on a
particular individual and such selection by the Honourable Chief
Justice of High Court is vested under Article 229 of the Constitution
of India and the same cannot be made the subject of public discussion.
Any further disclosure of information on that issue is thoroughly
unnecessary and unwarranted with no element of public interest.
Non-furnishing of such information is protected by Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act.
(d) The second respondent in one of the queries has sought for copies
of his own petitions and appeals. It is not known as to how the second
respondent-complainant can seek for those particulars which are
admittedly sent by him and presumably available with him.
13. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit. The crux of the
averments made therein is as follows:
(a) Insofar as case (i) is concerned, he perused the file on 3.2.2012,
but certified copies/copies of file notings or orders were not given
as requested by him.
(b) Insofar as case (ii) is concerned, the information sought for by
the second respondent on the selection of Registrar General is very
important and the petitioner gave the misleading and partial
information on 8.11.2012, that too after the issue of orders of the
first respondent and till date, he has not received the full
information on the selection of the Registrar General of this High
Court.
(c) Insofar as case (iii) is concerned, the information sought for is
in respect of the stepwise action taken on his complaint to the
Honourable Chief Justice on 31.10.2011 for a free and fair enquiry
into the appointment of the present Registrar General. The information
was denied on 4.4.2012, i.e. after 30 days and no hearing was extended
to the second respondent.
(d) Insofar as case (iv) is concerned, the second respondent sought
for the certified copies of his applications/complaints, because, he
wanted to know the comments/orders passed by the competent authority
to whom he submitted his application.
(e) Insofar as case (v) is concerned, he sought information on the
stepwise action taken on his complaint against the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the information was denied by stating
that his petition has been ordered to be closed.
(f) Insofar as case (vi) is concerned, the Assistant Public
Information Officer disposed of the application submitted on 5.12.2011
by the second respondent, who is not competent to dispose of the same.
(g) The Public Information Officer/Registrar General of this Court did
not act in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Public
Information Officer of this Court cannot be exempted from the rules or
provisions of the RTI Act. The second respondent's RTI applications
are submitted for obtaining information on public interest such as
appointment of the Registrar General, approval of the High Court to
the Public Prosecutor, seniority list of the District Judges and
information of stepwise action taken on his complaint to the Registrar
General and the Registrar (Vigilance) and all his requests for
information are genuine. The rejection of the information under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be done without giving reason.
(h) The directions issued by the first respondent to disclose the
procedure and file notes of the selection of the Registrar General is
reasonable. The President of India or the Chief Justice or any public
authority cannot do selection of the candidate as they please, whether
it is a sensitive post or not. All the posts starting from Group D to
All India Service are filled by proper selection procedure/recruitment
rules. If the file notes of the selection of Registrar General are not
released, then it leads to unwarranted suspicion on the selection of
the Registrar General.
(i) The second respondent is seeking copies of his complaint or
application to find out the action taken or order passed by the
competent authority to whom the complaint/letter was addressed. The
copies of the complaints were sought because the second respondent did
not have any copy. There is a collusion between the Police officials,
Public Prosecutor, State Information Commission and Public Information
Officer of this Court in stalling the flowing of due information to
him and thereby, deny him justice.
14. Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that what are all the information that could be furnished to
the second respondent, had been furnished, as stated in the affidavit
filed in support of the Writ Petition, except the minutes of the
Judges and file notings, which cannot be furnished to the second
respondent. He further submitted that on 21.8.2014, the second
respondent was informed once again about the action taken on his
complaint against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
In all other respects, the learned counsel reiterated the contentions
raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and in
support of such submissions, he relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court reported in 2012 (8) MLJ 122 (SC) (G.R.Deshpande Vs. Cen.
Information Commr.) and the decisions of this Court reported in 2013
(5) MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango),
2013 (5) MLJ 385 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs.
A.Kanagaraj), 2013 (5) MLJ 513 (Registrar General, High Court of
Madras Vs. R.M.Subramanian) and 2013 (5) MLJ 694 (Registrar General,
High Court of Madras Vs.K.U.Rajasekar).
15. Per contra, the second respondent who is appearing as
party-in-person, reiterated the contentions raised in the counter
affidavit and submitted that the information sought for by the second
respondent cannot be with-held by the petitioner and the first
respondent-Commission rightly passed an order directing the petitioner
to furnish those particulars to him.
16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the second respondent as party-in-person and
perused the materials available on record.
17. The present Writ Petition revolves around the object and scope of
the RTI Act, 2005 as well as the right of the second respondent to
seek certain informations from the High Court and the entitlement of
the petitioner to with-hold certain informations, out of all the
informations sought for by the second respondent, on the ground that
they are not permissible to be disclosed, which are discussed in
detail below.
18. Before we go into the merits of the case, let us consider the
relevant provisions of the RTI Act for the purpose of deciding this
case, which read as follows:
The RTI Act defines "information" under Section 2(f) as follows:
"information" means any material in any form, including records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples,
models, data material held in any electronic form and information
relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Likewise, it defines "right to information"under Section 2(j) as follows:
"right to information" means the right to information accessible under
this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority
and includes the right to--
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes,
video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts
where such information is stored in a computer or in any other
device."
Section 3 of the RTI Act contemplates that all citizens shall have the
right to information, subject to the provisions of the Act. The RTI
Act was enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of
right to information to citizens to secure access to information under
the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency
and accountability in the working of every public authority.
19. The scope and ambit of the RTI Act came up for consideration
before the Honourable Supreme Court on several occasions and in the
following decisions, the Supreme Court, after considering the same,
has observed as follows:
(a) In the decision reported in 2010 (2) SCC 1 (Khanapuram Gandaiah
Vs. Administrative Officer), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed
that the applicant under the RTI Act cannot ask for any information as
to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., have been
passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions, even
though he is entitled to get copies of the same.
(b) In 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), the Honourable
Supreme Court, while quoting the earlier decision reported in 2004 (2)
SCC 476 (People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India), held
that the "right to information" is a facet of the freedom of "speech
and expression", as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India and such a right is subject to any reasonable restriction in
the interest of the security of the State and subject to exemptions
and exceptions. It is further observed therein in paragraph 25 that
certain safeguards have been built into the RTI Act, so that
revelation of information will not conflict with other public
interests, which include efficient operation of the Governments,
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of
confidential and sensitive information.
(c) In the decision reported in 2012 (13) SCC 61 (Bihar Public Service
Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi), the Honourable Supreme
Court has considered the purpose, scheme and scope of the RTI Act,
2005 and found that the "right to information" is not uncontrolled
right, but subject to dual check, namely inbuilt restrictions within
the statute itself and secondly, Constitutional limitations enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant
observations made in paragraphs 12, 14 and 15 of the said decision,
read as follows:
"12. Right to information is a basic and celebrated fundamental/basic
right but is not uncontrolled. It has its limitations. The right is
subject to a dual check. Firstly, this right is subject to the
restrictions inbuilt within the Act, and secondly, the constitutional
limitations emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus,
wherever in response to an application for disclosure of information,
the public authority takes shelter under the provisions relating to
exemption, non-applicability or infringement of Article 21 of the
Constitution, the State Information Commission has to apply its mind
and form an opinion objectively if the exemption claimed for was
sustainable on facts of the case."
"14. Section 2(f) again is exhaustive in nature. The legislature has
given meaning to the expression "information" and has stated that it
shall mean any material in any form including papers, samples, data
material held in electronic form, etc. Right to information under
Section 2(j) means the "right to information" accessible under this
Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and
includes the right to inspection of work, documents, records, taking
notes, extracts, taking certified sample of materials, obtaining
information in the form of diskettes, floppies and video cassettes,
etc. The right sought to be exercised and information asked for should
fall within the scope of "information" and "right to information" as
defined under the Act."
"15. Thus, what has to be seen is whether the information sought for
in exercise of the right to information is one that is permissible
within the framework of law as prescribed under the Act. If the
information called for falls in any of the categories specified under
Section 8 or relates to the organisations to which the Act itself does
not apply in terms of Section 24 of the Act, the public authority can
take such stand before the Commission and decline to furnish such
information. Another aspect of exercise of this right is that where
the information asked for relates to third-party information, the
Commission is required to follow the procedure prescribed under
Section 11 of the Act."
(d) In the decision reported in 2012 (8) MLJ 122 (SC) (G.R.Deshpande
Vs. Cen. Information Commr.), the Supreme Court observed in paragraphs
13 and 15 as under:
"13. ... The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is
primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally
those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the
expression personal information, the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other
hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of
privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of
the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could
be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of
right.
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public
interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information
would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act"
20. Under the RTI Act, a citizen of this country has a right to
information as defined under Sections 2(f) and 2(j), of course,
subject to certain restrictions as provided under the Act. What
information one can seek and what right one can have, are specifically
contemplated under Sections 2(f) and 2(j) respectively. However, the
word "right" is not defined under the RTI Act. In the absence of any
definition of "right", it has to be understood to mean that such
"right" must have a legal basis. Therefore, the "right" must be
coupled with an object or purpose to be achieved. Such object and
purpose must, undoubtedly, have a legal basis or be legally
sustainable and enforceable. It cannot be construed that a request or
query made 'simpliciter', will fall under the definition of "right to
information". The "right" must emanate from legally sustainable claim.
There is a difference between the "right to information" and the
"right to seek information". It is like the "right to property" and
the "right to claim property". In the former, such right is already
accrued and vested with the seeker, whereas, in the latter, it is yet
to accrue or get vested. Likewise, a person who seeks information
under the RTI Act, must show that the information sought for is either
for his personal interest or for a public interest. Under both
circumstances, the information seeker must disclose atleast with bare
minimum details as to what is the personal interest or the public
interest, for which such information is sought for. If such details
are either absent or not disclosed, such query cannot be construed as
the one satisfying the requirement of the RTI Act. The restrictions
imposed under the RTI Act, though are in respect of providing certain
informations, certainly, there are certain inbuilt restrictions
imposed on the applicant as well.
21. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision
reported in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), such
right to seek information cannot be construed or claimed as an
unfettered right to seek any information and on the other hand, such
right being a facet of the freedom of "speech and expression", as
contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, is always
subject to reasonable restriction. No doubt, Section 3 of the RTI Act
contemplates that all citizens shall have the "right to information".
At the same time, when such "right to information" is not an
unfettered right and on the other hand, is subject to reasonable
restriction, it has to be held that such right cannot be sought to be
enforced as a matter of routine or as a matter of course, without
disclosing as to whether such right is being exercised to get an
information to achieve a legally enforceable or achievable object. In
other words, prima-facie, an applicant must disclose the object for
which such an information is sought for and also satisfy that such
object has a legal backing. If informations are to be furnished to a
person, who does not have any reason or object behind seeking such
informations, in our considered view, the intention of the Legislature
is not to the effect that such informations are to be given like
pamphlets to any person unmindful of the object behind seeking such
information. We should not be mistaken as if we are saying something
against the intention of the Legislature. What we want to emphasise is
that a Legislation, more particularly, the one on hand, must achieve
the object, viz., concrete and effective functioning of the public
authority with transparency and accountability by providing the
information which are under the control of such public authorities. If
the "right" provided under the RTI Act is misused, either as an
intimidation or as a threat against the effective functioning of the
public authorities, or such conduct would deviate the administration
from its effective functioning, the Courts will always weigh the
balance and lift the veil to find out as to whether the applicant has
sought the information with bona-fide intention and as to whether such
information has any relevance for his request. It is needless to say
that while the "use" is to be encouraged, the "misuse" has to be
curtailed and nibbed at the bud.
22. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the present
case. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the disputed
information sought for by the second respondent and as directed by the
first respondent-Commission to furnish, can be furnished or not. The
said issue is no more "res-integra", in view of the earlier decisions
of this Court in the following cases:
(a) It is relevant to notice that similar issue arose before a
Division Bench of this Court in respect of the information relating to
the employees of the Subordinate Courts/Judicial Officers, etc., in
the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High
Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango), wherein the Division Bench in paragraph
59 has observed that the notings, jottings, administrative letters,
intricate internal discussions, deliberations etc., of the High Court
cannot be brought under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act and furnishing of
those information will certainly impede and hinder the regular, smooth
and proper functioning of the institution. The relevant paragraphs 59
to 61 of the abovesaid decision are extracted hereunder:
"59. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective
contentions and on going through the contents of the application dated
01.11.2010 filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, this Court is of the
considered view that the information sought for by him in Serial Nos.1
to 9 pertaining to the internal delicate functioning/administration of
the High Court besides the same relate to invasion of privacy of
respective individuals if the informations so asked for are furnished
and more so, the informations sought for have no relationship to any
public activity or interest. Moreover, the informations sought for by
the 1st Respondent/ Applicant, through his application dated
01.11.2010 addressed to the Public Information Officer of the High
Court, Chennai, are not to a fuller extent open to public domain.
Added further, if the informations sought for by the 1st
Respondent/Applicant, through his letter dated 01.11.2010 addressed to
the Public Information Officer of High Court, are divulged, then, it
will open floodgates/Pandora Box compelling the Petitioner/High Court
to supply the informations sought for by the concerned Requisitionists
as a matter of routine, without any rhyme or reasons/restrictions as
the case may be. Therefore, some self restrictions are to be imposed
in regard to the supply of informations in this regard. As a matter of
fact, the Notings, Jottings, Administrative Letters, Intricate
Internal Discussions, Deliberations etc. of the Petitioner/High Court
cannot be brought under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act,
2005, in our considered opinion of this Court. Also that, if the
informations relating to Serial Nos.1 to 9 mentioned in the
application of the 1st Respondent/Applicant dated 01.11.2010 are
directed to be furnished or supplied with, then, certainly, it will
impede and hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the
Institution viz., High Court (an independent authority under the
Constitution of India, free from Executive or Legislature), as opined
by this Court. As such, a Saner Counsel/Balancing Act is to be adopted
in matters relating to the application of the Right to Information
Act, 2005, so that an adequate freedom and inbuilt safeguard can be
provided to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court competent
authority and public authority as per Section 2(e)(iii) and 2(h)(a) of
the Act 22 of 2005 in exercising his discretionary powers either to
supply the information or to deny the information, as prayed for by
the Applicants/Requisitionists concerned.
60. Apart from the above, if the informations requested by the 1st
Respondent/Applicant, based on his letter dated 01.11.2010, are
supplied with, then, it will have an adverse impact on the regular and
normal, serene functioning of the High Court's Office on the
Administrative side. Therefore, we come to an irresistible conclusion
that the 1st Respondent/Applicant is not entitled to be supplied with
the informations/details sought for by him, in his Application dated
01.11.2010 addressed to the Public Information Officer of the High
Court, Madras under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
Even on the ground of (i) maintaining confidentiality; (ii) based on
the reason that the private or personal information is exempted from
disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005; and (iii) also
under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act in lieu of fiduciary relationship
maintained by the High Court, the request of the 1st
Respondent/Applicant, through his Letter dated 01.11.2010/Appeal dated
20.12.2010 under Section 19 of the Act to the Writ
Petitioner/Appellate Authority, cannot be acceded to by this Court.
Further, we are of the considered view that the 1st
Respondent/Applicant has no locus standi to seek for the details
sought for by him, as stated supra, in a wholesale, omnibus and
mechanical fashion in the subject matter in issue, (either as a matter
of right/routine under the Right to Information Act) because of the
simple reason that he has no enforceable legal right. Also, we opine
that the 1st Respondent/Applicant's requests, through his Application
dated 01.11.2010 and his Appeal dated 20.12.2010, suffer from want of
bona fides (notwithstanding the candid fact that Section 6 of the
Right to Information Act does not either overtly or covertly refers to
the 'concept of Locus').
61. To put it differently, if the informations sought for by the 1st
Respondent/Applicant, through his letter dated 01.11.2010/Appeal dated
20.12.2010, are divulged or furnished by the Office of the High Court
(on administrative side), then, the secrecy and privacy of the
internal working process may get jeopardised, besides the furnishing
of said informations would result in invasion of unwarranted and
uncalled for privacy of individuals concerned. Even the disclosure of
informations pertaining to departmental enquiries in respect of
Disciplinary Actions initiated against the Judicial Officers/Officials
of the Subordinate Court or the High Court will affect the facile,
smooth and independent running of the administration of the High
Court, under the Constitution of India. Moreover, as per Section 2(e)
of the read with Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, the
Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court is empowered to frame rules to
carry out the provisions of the Act. In this regard, we point out that
'Madras High Court Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost)
Rules, 2007' have been framed vide R.O.C.No.2636-A/06/F1-SRO C-3/2008
in Tamil Nadu Gazette, No.20, dated 21.05.2008, Pt.III, S.2. Also, a
Notification, in Roc.No.976 A/2008/RTI dated 18.11.2008, has been
issued by this Court to the said Rules, by bringing certain amendments
in regard to the Name and Designation of the Officers mentioned
therein, the same has come into force from 18.11.2008."
(b) In the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 513 (Registrar General,
High Court of Madras Vs. R.M.Subramanian), a Division Bench of this
Court observed in paragraphs 94 to 96 as follows:
"94. To put it succinctly, the copies of Minutes recorded by the
Hon'ble Portfolio Judge, Pudukottai District dated 16.12.2010 and the
Minutes recorded by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 07.03.2011 in the
Criminal Contempt Petition issue, cannot be furnished or supplied to
the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, for the purpose of maintaining utmost
confidentiality and secrecy of the delicate function of the internal
matters of High Court. If the copies of the Minutes dated 16.12.2010
and 07.03.2011, as claimed by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, are
furnished, then, it will definitely make an inroad to the proper,
serene function of the Hon'ble High Courtbeing an Independent
Authority under the Constitution of India. Moreover, the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of High Court [as Competent Authority - Public Authority under
Section 2(e)(iii) and 2(h)(a) of the Act, 22 of 2005 and also
Plenipotentiary in the Judicial hierarchy] can be provided with an
enough freedom and inbuilt safeguards in exercising his discretionary
powers either to furnish the information or not to part with the
information, as prayed for by any applicant much less the 1st
Respondent/Petitioner.
95. That apart, if the copies of the Minutes dated 16.12.2010 and
07.03.2011 are supplied to the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, then, the
interest of the administration of the High Court will get jeopardised
and also it will perforce the Petitioner/High Court to furnish the
informations sought for by the concerned Applicants/Requisitionists as
a matter of usual course without any qualms or rhyme or
reasons/restrictions. In effect, to uphold the dignity and majesty of
the Hon'ble High Court - being an Independent Authority under the
Constitution of India, some self-restrictions are to be imposed as
regards the supply of internal/domestic functioning of the Hon'ble
High Court and its office informations in respect of matters which are
highly confidential in nature inasmuch as it concerns with the
Intricate, Internal Discussions and Deliberations, Notings, Jottings
and Administrative Decisions taken on various matters at different
levels and as such, they are exempted from disclosure under Section
8(e)(i)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Even otherwise, they
are not open to litigants/public without restrictions. No wonder, it
can be fittingly observed that if Impartiality is the Soul of
Judiciary, then, Independence is the Life Blood of Judiciary. Also
that, without Independence, Impartiality cannot thrive/survive.
96. In short, if the informations sought for by the 1st Respondent/
Petitioner are furnished, then, it will prejudicially affect the
confidential interest, privacy and well being of the High Court, in
the considered opinion of this Court. In any event, the 1st
Respondent/Petitioner cannot invoke the aid of Clause 37 of Amended
Letters Patent dealing with 'Regulation of Proceedings' and also Order
XII [pertaining to the entitlement of Certified Copies] of the Rules
of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, since they are not
applicable to him."
23. In this case, insofar as queries (i) and (v) are concerned, the
information sought for by the second respondent is with regard to the
action taken on his complaint against the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. It is seen that insofar as query (i) is
concerned, the petitioner has called upon the second respondent to
peruse the files regarding the action taken on the second respondent's
complaint, dated 1.6.2011. In the counter affidavit, the second
respondent admitted that he perused the files on 3.2.2012 and however,
certified copies/copies of the file notings or orders were not given
to him. Insofar query (v) is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner
has informed the second respondent on 28.3.2012 that his complaint,
dated 10.12.2011 filed against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai, had been closed. In fact, the said fact is not
disputed by the second respondent. On the other hand, in the counter
affidavit, the second respondent admitted that through communication,
dated 28.3.2012, he was informed that his petition had been ordered to
be closed. Apart from the abovesaid fact, during the pendency of the
present Writ Petition, the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court has
informed the second respondent through communication, dated 21.8.2014
about the action taken on his complaint against the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, informing as follows:
"Sir,
Sub: Furnishing of information - Regarding.
Ref: Your complaint dated 02.06.2011 and 29.09.2011, 01.11.2011,
31.10.2011, 10.12.2011
----
I am to inform you that your complaint dated 02.06.2011 made against
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (name not mentioned), Egmore,
Chennai has been received and assigned Roc.No.409/2011/VC. On perusal
of the complaint, the Hon'ble The Chief Justice has been ordered as
"Report may be called for from Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai and on perusal of the report submitted, the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice has ordered as "Report may be accepted and closed."
Further I am to inform that the complaints dated 29.09.2011,
01.11.2011, 31.10.2011 and 10.12.2011 has been received and assigned
Roc.No.6425/2011/VC/Tapal, 6428/2011/VC/Tapal, 6430/2011/VC/Tapal and
716/2012/VC/Tapal and they were ordered to be placed before the
Hon'ble Administrative Committee and the Hon'ble Administrative
Committee resolved to hold an enquiry pertaining to the allegations
against the Subordinate Judicial Officer and staff members of the High
Court by the Registrar (Vigilance) and on perusal of the enquiry
report, the Hon'ble Administrative Committee has resolved to close the
proceedings initiated.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Registrar (Vigilance)"
24. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, we find that
the second respondent cannot have any grievance, as the petitioner has
permitted the second respondent to peruse the files regarding the
action taken and also informed him of the fact that his complaint had
been ordered to be closed. However, the second respondent contends
that the file notings and other minutes sought for in his complaint
were not furnished. Such information cannot be furnished to the second
respondent, as held by this Court in the decision reported in 2013 (5)
MLJ 134 (cited supra).
25. Insofar as queries (ii) and (iii) are concerned, the second
respondent was informed by the petitioner that there are no
recruitment rules for the post of Registrar General and there is no
Selection Committee for that post. In the absence of any such
information being available, the second respondent cannot compel the
petitioner to furnish the same. Even otherwise, as already observed by
the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2013 (5)
MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango),
furnishing of those information with regard to the Registrar General
which has been done by the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court,
cannot be brought under the purview of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act,
as, such information pertain to the internal intricate
functioning/administration of the High Court and such information has
no relationship with any public activity or interest. As observed by
the Division Bench therein, certainly, furnishing of those information
will hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the
institution, unnecessarily warranting scrupulous litigations. In fact,
a perusal of the pleadings, more particularly, the application made by
the second respondent as well as the counter affidavit filed in this
Writ Petition, would show that the second respondent has not disclosed
even the basic reason for seeking those informations. On the other
hand, he has made those applications mechanically, as a matter of
routine under the RTI Act. The Division Bench of this Court, in the
said decision, has also observed that the first respondent in that
Writ Petition who is similar to the present second respondent, has no
locus-standi to seek for the details sought for by him, as he has no
enforceable legal right. Further, posting a Senior District Judge as
Registrar General by the Honourable Chief Justice is in exercise of
powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and
the second respondent or any other person including other Judges, has
no say in the said matter. The said issue is already settled by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1998 (3) SCC 72
(High Court Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal) and in
paragraph 38, the Honourable Supreme Court held that under the
Constitutional Scheme, Chief Justice is the supreme authority and
other Judges, so far as officers and servants of the High Court are
concerned, have no role to play on the administrative side. The said
position is reiterated in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court
reported in 2012 (1) MLJ 289 (SC) (Registrar General Vs. R.Perachi).
26. 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. It is needless to say
that they are not the information available within the knowledge of
the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, 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, thinking that the High Court will
preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets.
Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition
"information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore,
we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect.
27. Insofar as query (vi) is concerned, admittedly, the matter is
sub-judice and pending before the High Court in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of
2010. To that effect, already information had been furnished by the
petitioner to the second respondent on 13.3.2012 informing that his
petition has been put up along with the case bundle. Therefore, the
second respondent is not entitled to get any information with regard
to the proceedings pending before the Court of Law and if at all he
wants any document relating to the pending case/cases, he has to only
apply for certified copy and obtain the same in terms of the Rules
framed by the High Court. No doubt, the second respondent is seeking
information regarding the action taken against inclusion of one
Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan as Advocate in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010. Since
his complaint has been put up along with the case bundle, which is
pending before Court, the petitioner, certainly, is precluded from
furnishing any information, as the matter is seized of by the Court in
Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010 on its judicial side.
28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as
stated above and also going by the earlier decisions rendered by the
Honourable Supreme Court and the Division Benches of this Court, cited
supra, we are of the view that the present case is squarely covered by
those decisions against the second respondent, and therefore, the
second respondent is not entitled to get the information in respect of
those six appeals by way of attested file copies of the relevant
documents including the file notings and the correspondences made
thereon. The impugned order of the first respondent-Commission in
directing the petitioner to furnish those information, is erroneous
and not sustainable, in view of the earlier decisions rendered by this
Court and the Honourable Supreme Court as discussed supra. Hence, the
impugned order passed by the first respondent-Commission insofar as
six appeals are concerned, is liable to be set aside.
29. Insofar as the other 47 complaints wherein the first
respondent-Commission has passed an order directing the petitioner to
prepare a tabular statement listing all the complaints and
representations received from the second respondent, are concerned, we
are not in a position to understand as to what are those 47 complaints
or applications made by the second respondent and what are the
informations that are sought for in those queries. A perusal of the
impugned order passed by the first respondent-Commission does not
indicate any detail with regard to those 47 complaint cases. In the
absence of those material details, we are not in a position to
appreciate the order passed by the first respondent-Commission
directing the petitioner to prepare a tabular statement listing all
the complaints and the representations received from the second
respondent being dealt with on the administrative and judicial sides
of this Court and the current status of the action taken thereon.
Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order of the first
respondent is bereft of any material particulars insofar as those 47
RTI applications referred to in the impugned order and the direction
issued to the petitioner in that regard is also not sustainable.
30. In fact, the first respondent-Commission itself has deprecated the
practice of the second respondent herein in overloading the Registry
of this Court by making several queries or complaints one after
another and following the same under the RTI Act. Having found that
the action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and
representations and then following the same with the RTI applications;
that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot
overload a public authority and divert its resources
disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation
of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of
any public authority, as it would be against the larger public
interest, the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the
impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to
furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a
tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations
received from the second respondent.
31. For the foregoing reasonings, the impugned order of the first
respondent-Commission is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.
No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(N.P.V.J) (K.R.C.B.J)
17.09.2014
Index: Yes/no
Internet: Yes/no
cs
To
1. The Central Information Commission,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Room No.306, 2nd Floor, "B" Wing,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.
2. The Public Information Officer,
The Registrar (Administration),
High Court, Madras.
N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J
and
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J
cs
Order in
W.P.No.26781 of 2013
17.9.2014
--
-Sincerely Yours,
Urvashi Sharma
Secretary - YAISHWARYAJ SEVA SANSTHAAN
101,Narayan Tower, Opposite F block Idgah
Rajajipuram,Lucknow-226017,Uttar Pradesh,India
Contact 9369613513
Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
Helpline Against Corruption 9455553838
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/
Note : if you don't want to receive mails from me,kindly inform me so
that i should delete your name from my mailing list.
