CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. - CIC/PA/C/2009/000007 dated 31.12.'09
Right to Information Act - Section 18(f)
Appellant: Shri Sarvesh Sharma
Respondent: High Court of Patna
Decision announced on 9 September 2010
Facts
:
The Commission received a complaint from the Appellant, Shri Sarvesh
Sharma pertaining to the “procedural difficulties”, “technicalities” and
“complexities” faced by a hypothethical applicant in accessing information from
various High Courts in India.
The complaint was pursuant to a request for information by the Appellant
who wrote to the Joint Registrar (Judicial), at the High Court of Patna on 19 Jan
2009, asking for latest returns received from all district courts under the
jurisdiction of that High court on different categories of cases pending before
them. The appellant duly paid a fee of Rs.50 by demand draft on 17 Jan 2009,
only to receive a response on 29 Jan 2009 from the relevant CPIO directing the
said Appellant to deposit Rs. 50 in cash at the Counter of Accounts, as stipulated
by the Patna High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005. The Respondent
duly returned the bank draft of Rs. 50 to the Appellant.
On 16 Feb 2009, the Appellant wrote to the Central Information
Commission in his capacity as Adviser to Common Cause, a civil society
organization (CSO) ‘working on issues of common interest to citizens’,
establishing the said CSO’s concern with the backlog of “nearly 3.2 crore cases”
in various courts all over the country.
The Appellant detailed the disparate requirements established by various
state courts in regard to Requests for Information. Specifically, the appellant
1
identified the High Court of Allahabad which “demands a positive assertion that
the motive for seeking information is proper”, a requirement which he felt was at
odds with Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In addition, the Appellant also detailed the differentiated application
processes among High Courts throughout the country identifying the High Courts
of Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana
and Rajasthan as requiring payment of fees by way of adhesive court stamps
whereas the Delhi and Patna High Courts require that fees be paid in cash only.
Finally, the Appellant highlighted the inconsistent fees required by High
Courts throughout country for applications, pointing out the relatively high
charges of Rs. 500 stipulated by the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, in contrast
to the High Courts in Gujarat, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Patna which specify
an application fee of Rs. 50. The Appellant contends that these fees are too high
and are inconsistent with Section 7(5) of the RTI Act which legislates that “….no
such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below the poverty line as
may be determined by the appropriate Government.”
Decision Notice
It is apparent to the Commission that the Appellant’s complaint does not
pertain specifically to the original request for Information made to the PIO, Patna
High Court. Without prejudice, there is little reason to doubt that the said PIO
would have been obligated to present to required information to the Appellant
had the latter complied with the procedure laid out in the Patna High Court (Right
to Information) Rules, 2005, to promulgate which the High Court is “the
competent authority” defined u/s 2 (e) (iii) of the RTI Act 2005. Accordingly, as
there is no specific allegation against the CPIO, any issue of non-response does
not stand. The complaint is therefore dismissed.
2
Separately, the Commission notes the latitude offered to state authorities
by the law to determine the appropriate fees to charge applicants with regard to
applications, as statutorily authorized by Section 7(5) of the RTI Act. However,
the Commission acknowledges the inputs and feedback made by the Appellant,
especially in regard to the Allahabad High Court’s requirement that demands a
positive assertion with regard to the motive for seeking information is “proper”, a
requirement that is seemingly at odds with Section 6(2) of the RTI Act. However
this Commission may rule on that matte only in response to a specifc complaint
or appeal moved u/s 18 (1) or 19(3) of the Act. The Commission nevertheless
appreciates Appellant’s feedback for future reference.
Announced on this ninth day of September in open chambers.. Notice of
this decision is given free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah
(Chief Information Commissioner)
9.09. 2010
Authenticated true copy, additional copies of order shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charge prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar
Joint Registrar
9.09 2010
3