CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01227 dated 11.7.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri V. K. Agarwal
Respondent - High Court of Delhi
Decision announced: 17.12.2009
Facts
:
By an application of 24.12.07 Shri V. K. Agarwal of Shiv Nagar, Delhi
applied to the Jt. Registrar (Estt) & CPIO High Court of Delhi seeking the
following information:
“1. Details about the Monitoring Committee members with their
addresses, as constituted recently in respect of initiating
disciplinary action against the Judges of Delhi Courts and
Tribunals.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has been filing false
affidavits in the High Court / Tribunal. Kindly provide the
method, manner and procedure under which, such false
affidavits could be dealt with effectively.”
To this Shri V. K. Agarwal initially received a response on 4.2.08 informing
him that the fee of Rs. 10/- was deficient as per Delhi High Court (Right to
Information) Rules, 2006. He then submitted on 14.2.08 a further fee of Rs. 40/-.
Upon this PIO Shri J. N. Kalra responded on 11.3.08 refusing the information
sought as follows:
“1. The information sought by you is confidential and not in any
way related to you and is in the form of a roving and fishing
inquiry. The information sought for cannot be provided in
terms of Rule 4(iv) and Rule 5(b) of Delhi High Court (Right
to Information) Rules, 2006.
2. The Forum of RTI Act is not meant for handing out legal
opinion. The information sought for in question No. 2 of the
application is a legal opinion and not “information” within the
meaning of the expression used in the law and rules.”
1
Aggrieved Shri Agarwal moved an appeal before Shri Kalam Singh,
Registrar (Admn) on 22.5.08 on the following grounds:
“1. The documents demanded do not fall within the purview of
any of the sections of prohibited nature and these are
ordinary documents i.e. for the people in general.
2. Larger public interest is a clean and transparent life in the
judicial system.
3. Monitoring Committee its members their addresses etc. are
a public policy.
4. Truthfulness in judiciary as well as before judiciary by the
litigants is a published policy in the Indian judicial System
and its disclosure stands for the lager public interest and
none of the information demanded fall within the preview of
sec. 8, 11 and all such sections of RTI Act.”
Upon this Appellate Authority Shri Kamal Singh in his order of 26.5.08
found as follows:
“I have heard the appellant. The appellant contended that Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sanghathan is filing false affidavits and the Judges of the
Central Administrative Tribunal are not taking any action against
them. Therefore, he wanted to make a complaint to the members
of Monitoring Committee against the Judges of Central
Administrative Tribunal. The appellant further contended that he
should be informed the method, manner and procedure under
which filing of such false affidavits could be dealt with. The
contention is in the form of seeking advice or legal opinion to tackle
the problem of filing false affidavit. If Kendriya Vidyalaya is filing
false affidavits, the appellant may take appropriate legal remedy
available to him. Public Information Officer and/or Appellate
Authority are not competent to advise on such issues.”
In his prayer before us in his second appeal Shri Agarwal has pleaded as
follows:
“a) Order to supply the correct information immediately
absolutely free of cost.
b) Action against PIO be initiated for late supply of
information.
c) Impose a penalty as per act / rules i.e. Rs. 250/- per day
till the date the proper and authentic information is
supplied.
d) Any other in favour of appellant as against respondents
as deemed fit.
2
e) Justice should be awarded to appellant.”
The appeal was heard on 17.12.2009. The following are present:
Respondents
Shri Rajiv Bansal, Counsel for DHC
Shri Gurcharan Singh, Asstt. Registrar
Shri Sanjay Prakash Gupta, AOJ
Shri Divyaranjan Gouda, JJA
Although appellant Sh. V. K. Agarwal had been informed by Notice dated
1.12.2009 regarding the hearing, he has opted not to be present. Learned
Counsel for respondents Shri Rajiv Bansal submitted that in fact there is no such
Monitoring Committee regarding which appellant Shri Agarwal has sought
information. However, he submitted that this information could not be provided at
the initial stage because it was excluded from disclosure under the Delhi High
Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 under Rule 4(4) & 5(b), which rules have
subsequently been withdrawn in consequence of the advice of Central
Information Commission.
DECISION NOTICE
The first question of Shri V. K. Agarwal in his application of 24.12.08 is
decidedly a request for information. The reason why it was refused in the first
instance has been explained by the learned Counsel for respondents. However,
the actual information in this regard is that there is no such Monitoring Committee
with regard to which details had been sought, information that is now disclosed.
On the other hand, equally clearly the question at Sr. No. 2 is a request for
advice, which, as held by the CPIO, cannot be treated as “Advice” under Sec.
2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as such advice, unless it is maintained
in material form by a public authority, cannot be treated as information.
The only issue that remains is whether the CPIO has defaulted in
responding to an application of 24.12.07 only on 4.2.08. In this case the
3
application had been submitted without adequate fee. It was, therefore, not
mandatory in law for the CPIO to respond. On the other hand u/s 6 of the RTI
Act a Public Information Officer is expected to “render all reasonable assistance
to the person making a request”. Although this proviso to section 6 refers
specifically to a person who cannot make the request in writing, the spirit of the
Act is that the CPIO assist a person seeking information under the RTI Act 2005.
For this reason, it would be in the spirit of the Act if, when an application is
received without the requisite fee, the applicant is advised forthwith regarding the
deficiency to enable him to rectify this. In this case appellant Shri Agarwal had
been too ready so to do. We have been assured by learned Counsel that this is
now the practice in the Delhi High Court. This appeal is thus allowed in part, and
the information disclosable now provided as above. 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
17.12.2009
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
17.12.2009
4