CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00043/SG/1288
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/00043
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kumar
605, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-11054
Respondent1: Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Tis Hazari Court, District and Sessions Judge, Delhi
RTI application filed on: 22/08/2008
Reply from PIO: 26/08/2008
First Appeal filed on: 01/09/2008
First Appellate Authority order: 24/09/2008
Second Appeal filed on: 04/10/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information in form of – (1) copies of the suit register maintained by the court of than Sub Judge Shri AK Mehandiratta for the period from 26.2.1993 to 31.3.1993; (2)copy of the suit disposal records of the suit titled Raj Surender pal Thapar v Raj Mohan Lal Thapar assigned to the court of Shri AK Mehandiratta , the than Sub-Judge from the period from 27.1993 to 1.3.1993;(3) the copy of the suit register containing list of suits filed before the senior Civil Judge Delhi for the period from 25.2.1993 to 1.3.1993 from the PIO , Tis Hazari Courts, District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. The PIO replied dated 26/08/2008 stating that an application can be moved for obtaining certified copies of judicial file/record before the concerned copying agency and get certified copies of the same as desired by the applicant from the copying agency.
Not satisfied by the reply from the PIO the appellant filed First Appeal on 01/09/2008.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Since a person who is entitled to obtain a copy of a document U/s 76 of Evidence Act, he is not entitled to get copy thereof by virtue of Section 2(J) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore appellate may obtain copies of cout record if any u/s 76 of Evidence act. Therefore there is no infirmity in order passed by PIO. The appeal was dismissed.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kumar Jain
Respondent: Mr.K.S.Rao PIO
The PIO states that:
1- No information is being ‘held’ by Court because there is a provision of the inspection of the record with permission of court and taking certified copy from copying agency U/s 76 of Indian evidence act and if the case is pending before the court of law, it is a dispute between a party and party to the case can inspect the file with the permission of the Court, otherwise it will be contempt of court U/s 8(1)(b) of RTI act. PIO contends that word ‘held’ occurring in Section 2(j) means “withholding and not giving.”
2- It has not been indicated in the application whether the information required, belongs to the third party.
3- Applicant is Lawyer and it has not been disclosed whether information is required under profession or not
The appellant states that:
1- The document/record is a public document held by the PIO and ought to be given to the appellant.
2- No 3rd party information is requested for and even if it is requested procedure under RTI Act should
be followed by the PIO.
3- RTI Act does not debar the information / documents which may be covered by the Section 76 of the
evidence Act. RTI Act has and overbidding effect and is the latest statue and should prevail accordingly.
The order is reserved.
Decision given on 27 January 2009 :
Denial by PIO is based on 3 contention made by him before Commission. He has claimed that since there are rules for giving copies from concerned agency appellant must obtain information by using copying agency.
FAA has given two contradictory directions by first stating that information cannot be given as per provisions of Section 22 of Hindu Marriage Act and then implied that information could be obtained from Copying agency
We will first deal with the contentions of the PIO. He has invented a meaning of the word ‘held’ as meaning ‘withholding and not giving’. The word ‘held’ is usually understood to mean to be in possession of. ‘Held is a past participle of the word ‘hold’. Oxford Dictionary defines hold as ‘grasp, carry or support; have in one’s possession’. Nobody would ascribe the meaning ‘withholding and not giving up’ as contended by the PIO. Since there is no specific order of a Court expressly forbidding the information from being published the PIOs plea that disclosing this information will constitute contempt of court is without any basis.
The PIO states that the applicant has not disclosed whether the information belongs to a third party, and that he has not disclosed whether the information is required by him for use in his profession. Neither of these is relevant, since there is no requirement in law for the applicant to disclose either of these.
FAA’s has stated that U/s 22 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 a copy of the judgement passed by a Matrimonial Court cannot be supplied. The RTI act at Section 22 has clearly stated, ‘ The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.’. Hence unless there is a provision in the RTI act to deny the information, it will have to be provided.
No claim has been made by PIO of any exemption under RTI act to deny information. If a Public authority has a process of disclosing certain information which can also be accessed by a Citizen using RTI, it is Citizen’s right to decide which route he wishes to use. The existence of another method of accessing information cannot be used to deny Citizen his freedom to use his fundamental right codified under RTI Act. If Parliament wanted to restrict his right, it would have been stated in Law. Nobody else has right to constrain or constrict rights of Citizen.
There is no proviso in RTI Act which restrains Citizen’s right to use it, if another route to avail information has been offered. It is a Citizen’s right to use most convenient and efficacious means available to him.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the complete information free of cost to the appellant before 10 February 2009.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 January 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00043/SG/1288
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/00043
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kumar
605, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-11054
Respondent1: Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Tis Hazari Court, District and Sessions Judge, Delhi
RTI application filed on: 22/08/2008
Reply from PIO: 26/08/2008
First Appeal filed on: 01/09/2008
First Appellate Authority order: 24/09/2008
Second Appeal filed on: 04/10/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information in form of – (1) copies of the suit register maintained by the court of than Sub Judge Shri AK Mehandiratta for the period from 26.2.1993 to 31.3.1993; (2)copy of the suit disposal records of the suit titled Raj Surender pal Thapar v Raj Mohan Lal Thapar assigned to the court of Shri AK Mehandiratta , the than Sub-Judge from the period from 27.1993 to 1.3.1993;(3) the copy of the suit register containing list of suits filed before the senior Civil Judge Delhi for the period from 25.2.1993 to 1.3.1993 from the PIO , Tis Hazari Courts, District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. The PIO replied dated 26/08/2008 stating that an application can be moved for obtaining certified copies of judicial file/record before the concerned copying agency and get certified copies of the same as desired by the applicant from the copying agency.
Not satisfied by the reply from the PIO the appellant filed First Appeal on 01/09/2008.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Since a person who is entitled to obtain a copy of a document U/s 76 of Evidence Act, he is not entitled to get copy thereof by virtue of Section 2(J) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore appellate may obtain copies of cout record if any u/s 76 of Evidence act. Therefore there is no infirmity in order passed by PIO. The appeal was dismissed.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kumar Jain
Respondent: Mr.K.S.Rao PIO
The PIO states that:
1- No information is being ‘held’ by Court because there is a provision of the inspection of the record with permission of court and taking certified copy from copying agency U/s 76 of Indian evidence act and if the case is pending before the court of law, it is a dispute between a party and party to the case can inspect the file with the permission of the Court, otherwise it will be contempt of court U/s 8(1)(b) of RTI act. PIO contends that word ‘held’ occurring in Section 2(j) means “withholding and not giving.”
2- It has not been indicated in the application whether the information required, belongs to the third party.
3- Applicant is Lawyer and it has not been disclosed whether information is required under profession or not
The appellant states that:
1- The document/record is a public document held by the PIO and ought to be given to the appellant.
2- No 3rd party information is requested for and even if it is requested procedure under RTI Act should
be followed by the PIO.
3- RTI Act does not debar the information / documents which may be covered by the Section 76 of the
evidence Act. RTI Act has and overbidding effect and is the latest statue and should prevail accordingly.
The order is reserved.
Decision given on 27 January 2009 :
Denial by PIO is based on 3 contention made by him before Commission. He has claimed that since there are rules for giving copies from concerned agency appellant must obtain information by using copying agency.
FAA has given two contradictory directions by first stating that information cannot be given as per provisions of Section 22 of Hindu Marriage Act and then implied that information could be obtained from Copying agency
We will first deal with the contentions of the PIO. He has invented a meaning of the word ‘held’ as meaning ‘withholding and not giving’. The word ‘held’ is usually understood to mean to be in possession of. ‘Held is a past participle of the word ‘hold’. Oxford Dictionary defines hold as ‘grasp, carry or support; have in one’s possession’. Nobody would ascribe the meaning ‘withholding and not giving up’ as contended by the PIO. Since there is no specific order of a Court expressly forbidding the information from being published the PIOs plea that disclosing this information will constitute contempt of court is without any basis.
The PIO states that the applicant has not disclosed whether the information belongs to a third party, and that he has not disclosed whether the information is required by him for use in his profession. Neither of these is relevant, since there is no requirement in law for the applicant to disclose either of these.
FAA’s has stated that U/s 22 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 a copy of the judgement passed by a Matrimonial Court cannot be supplied. The RTI act at Section 22 has clearly stated, ‘ The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.’. Hence unless there is a provision in the RTI act to deny the information, it will have to be provided.
No claim has been made by PIO of any exemption under RTI act to deny information. If a Public authority has a process of disclosing certain information which can also be accessed by a Citizen using RTI, it is Citizen’s right to decide which route he wishes to use. The existence of another method of accessing information cannot be used to deny Citizen his freedom to use his fundamental right codified under RTI Act. If Parliament wanted to restrict his right, it would have been stated in Law. Nobody else has right to constrain or constrict rights of Citizen.
There is no proviso in RTI Act which restrains Citizen’s right to use it, if another route to avail information has been offered. It is a Citizen’s right to use most convenient and efficacious means available to him.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the complete information free of cost to the appellant before 10 February 2009.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 January 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
No comments:
Post a Comment