CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00589 dated 19-6-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Subhash Rangbulla;
Respondent: Supreme Court of India
FACTS
By an application of 22-2-07 Shri Subhash Rangbulla, President, Lok
Shakti Consumers Association, Fazilka, District Ferozepur (Punjab) applied to
the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, seeking the following information:
“Information may kindly be provided to the applicant that
whether this association may get the counsel from the panel of
free legal aid or not. If yes, then please send the specimen of
concerned application & detail of other necessary information/
formalities.”
To this he received a response from Shri Ashok Kumar, CPIO,
Supreme Court of India on 23-3-2007 as follows: –
“You may contact the following for seeking legal aid and advice
and filing cases in the Supreme Court of India.
1. The Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee,
109, Lawyer Chambers, supreme Court Compound, New
Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Supreme Court Middle Income Group Society,
109, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court Compound, New
Delhi.”
Not satisfied appellant moved his first appeal before Shri T.N. Sansi,
Registrar, Supreme Court of India on 7-4-07 with the following plea:
“The applicant had sought the information through letter dated
22.2.2007 (copy attached) that whether the Lok Shakti
Consumer Ass. (Regd.) Fazilka may get or deserves to get the
counsel from the panel of free legal aid or not. But the central
information officer has not provided the said information to the
applicant.”
Shri Sunil Thomas, Appellate Authority in a speaking order of 2nd May
2007, dismissed this appeal as follows:
“By the letter of the appellant, the details sought from CPIO
were not ‘information’ as contemplated under section 2(f) of the
Right to Information Act, but only an opinion on the eligibility of1
the association to get free legal aid. Since the CPIO was not
maintaining any such records, the CPIO justifiably furnished the
available material for furnishing the details of authority which
could answer the request.”
Appellant’s prayer in his second appeal before us is as below: –
“After accepting the instant appeal of the appellant, the
respondents may kindly be directed to provide the sought
information as early as possible to the appellant in the
interest of justice and amount of penalty may also be
imposed upon the respondents so that in future they will do
their duty honestly.”
This prayer he has based on quoting the definition of ‘information’ u/s
2(f) of the Act, which includes “opinions, advices”, and pleading that if the
Registrar of Supreme Court did not hold the information the matter should
have been transferred u/s 6 (3) of the Act.
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 1-12-08.
Contacted on the telephone by the Registry appellant had assured that
although he would not be present himself, he would be represented by
counsel. However, although commencement of hearing was delayed, only
the following are present.
Respondents at CIC Studio.
Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate, Supreme Court.
Shri Raj Pal Arora, CPIO & Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court of India.
After allowing 15 minutes for appellant or his representative to appear
at the NIC Studio, Ferozepur, it was concluded that appellant had opted not to
be present.
Learned counsel for respondent Shri Amit Anand Tiwari submitted that
all that the appellant had asked for was an opinion and not information which
would have merited transfer u/s 6 (3) (i). In this context he again read out
from the RTI Application of Shri Subhash Rangbulla in which the question is
on the possibility of the association obtaining counsel from the panel of Free
Legal Aid. It was for the CPIO of the organisation to whom application had
been made, to determine in his response, if such opinion was held in material
2
form, which would qualify it as ‘information’. Appellant had therefore been
advised accordingly.
DECISION NOTICE
The order of Shri Sunil Thomas, 1st Appellate Authority, Supreme Court
of India of 2-5-07 clarifies the position with regard to information sought. In
fact, the Supreme Court of India has assisted in guiding appellant to the
appropriate authority to whom application can be moved u/s 6 (1). However,
the concerned public authorities which are the authorities named by the CPIO
in his response to the application were the appropriate authorities to answer
the question of appellant Shri Rangbulla, even if this were only with regard to
request for an opinion, since it is those authorities which could hold a
recorded opinion on the subject. Only information held in material form can
qualify as ‘information’ under the RTI Act, 2005
Under the circumstances, we would however advise the CPIO,
Supreme Court of India to ensure that such cases are transferred to the
appropriate public authority u/s 6 (3) sub-section (i), particularly, if these are
related to the area of responsibility of the Supreme Court of India, such as
public authorities in this case are. However, given the provision of Section 6
(1) of the RTI Act which requires that an applicant is expected to make an
application to “the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority” 1 ,
the response of the CPIO in the present case is sound in law and is therefore,
upheld. With the above observation, we find that this appeal is
unsustainable and is hereby dismissed. There will be no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
1-12-2008
1
Underlined by us
3
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
1-12-2008
4