CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000443 dated 30.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Raj Balam Sharma
Respondent - Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Decision announced in hearing 12.8.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 19.12.08 Shri Raj Balam Sharma, himself an
Advocate, of Shakarpur, Delhi applied to the Competent Authority, Office of Chief
Justice, Supreme Court of India seeking information on seven points concerning
general questions on the functioning of the Supreme Court and records
maintained by it. He has received a point wise response from CPIO Shri Raj Pal
Arora, Addl. Registrar dated 14.1.09. But whereas his own application, a copy of
which he has submitted with his appeal before us has only seven questions, the
response which is point wise addressed 25 questions.
Shri Sharma has then gone in appeal on 29.1.09, upon which Shri M. P.
Bhadran has in a detailed order, after examining the answers to each of the
questions put and the answers given by CPIO, come to the following conclusion:
“It is practically impossible to furnish the information sought by the
appellant as per point 4 (iii) since no such data is kept in the Supreme
Court in respect of 80,000 cases as mentioned therein. Similarly, the
request of the appellant as per point 4 (iv) and connected points is not
covered under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. It is beyond the jurisdiction and
duty of CPIO to give his opinion as sought by the appellant as per point 4
(v). Similarly, no information is available with the CPIO in respect of point
4 (vii) and the points as referred to in the order of the CPIO. I find no error
in the impugned order.”
Shri Sharma has then moved a second appeal before us with the following
prayer:
“No response received in form-B, or C within thirty days of
submission of Form-A response only of para-i) and ii) of the
application and rest para-iii) to xx) left without reply.”
1
The appeal was heard on 14.7.10. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Raj Balam Sharma
Respondents
Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate for SCI
Ms. Asha Ahuja, Br. Officer, SCI
Learned Counsel for Supreme Court of India Shri Devadatt Kamat
presented his vakalatnama, which has been placed on record. He presented a
copy of the original application moved by Shri Raj Balam Sharma before
Supreme Court of India on 13.12.08. This carries only some questions which are
identical with the copy of the application that appellant has submitted to this
Commission together with his second appeal. While examining the responses,
therefore, we found that questions (iii), (iv) and (vii) are different to those in the
application actually submitted to the Supreme Court, the only identical questions
with identical answers being (i), (ii) & (v).
In response Shri Raj Balam Sharma submitted that he had abbreviated his
original application for presentation before this Commission. Because of this,
however, the whole perspective of questions asked and answers given has been
rendered obscure making it impossible for this Commission to arrive at a
considered decision against each question asked. If appellant Shri Sharma were
satisfied with the answers to certain questions he was free to say so in the
appeal that he moved before us highlighting only those questions regarding
which he was aggrieved with the answers. For this reason, the hearing was
adjourned to 10.8.2010 at 4.00 p.m. before which, and not later than a week from
the date of receipt of this interim decision, Shri Raj Balam Sharma was directed
to send to us a revised statement with a copy to CPIO SCI, with regard to the
original application, a copy of which is in our possession now, after which the
matter will be heard.
2
Accordingly the matter was heard once more on 10.8.2010. The following
are present
Appellant
Shri Raj Balam Sharma
Respondents
Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate for SCI
Ms. Smita Vats Sharma Addl. Registrar, CPIO, SCI
Ms. Asha Ahuja, Br. Officer, SCI
Appellant Shri Raj Balam Sharma, Advocate submitted a revised list of
questions which he stated was the same as was part of his original RTI
application. This, however, was contested by Learned Counsel for respondents
who submitted that there was still a discrepancy although minor, specifically with
regard to the listing of question nos. 18 & 19. The application was then
examined question wise.
Learned Counsel for respondent Shri Devdutt Kamat submitted that the
entire information sought by appellant Shri Raj Balam Sharma with regard to
question nos. 1 & 2 are available on the website and appellant Shri Raj Balam
Sharma was welcome to access this. It was clarified with regard to question no. 6
that information regarding voluntary declaration of the property by the Judges is
also available on the website, but that all such disclosures are voluntary. Insofar
as Supreme Court of India is concerned the Registry of the Supreme Court of
India is not in a position to answer this question with regard to Judges of the High
Courts.
Information with regard to question nos. 6, 14 & 15 was, besides, not held
by the Registry but with specific reference to the question at serial no. 14
Learned Counsel for respondent clarified that there was no authority authorized
to hear complaints against judges so long as the Judge holds office. He can,
however, be impeached by Parliament and Parliament alone. Learned Counsel
for respondents also submitted that the details of the same fall within the ambit of
3
in-house procedure in the Office of Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India.
Disclosure of this matter is at present sub-judice with a stay issued in SLP filed
before the apex court by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India.
DECISION NOTICE
From our discussion as described above we find that all the information in
the form of information as defined in section 2 (f) held by the Supreme Court of
India has indeed been provided to appellant Shri Raj Balam Sharma, save such
information the disclosure of which is at present under stay. Further clarifications
have also been provided in the hearing. Under the circumstances there is no
further action warranted in this regard. Those questions in which opinions have
been elicited such as question no. 5 cannot be provided by CPIO but will require
a legal opinion giving the required clarification. Moreover there is no prescribed
form as per the Act-with reference to Forms B and C referred to by appellant-
through which information is required to be provided. Therefore, after elucidation
provided to appellant by learned counsel for respondent in the hearing, this
appeal is now dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
12.8.2010
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
12.8.2010
4