In fact, a perusal of the pleadings, more particularly, the
application made by the second respondent as well as the counter affidavit filed
in this Writ Petition, would show that the second respondent has not disclosed
even the basic reason for seeking those informations. On the other hand, he has
made those applications mechanically, as a matter of routine under the RTI Act.
The Division Bench of this Court, in the said decision, has also observed that the
first respondent in that Writ Petition who is similar to the present second
respondent, has no locus-standi to seek for the details sought for by him, as he
has no enforceable legal right.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.9.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.26781 of 2013
& M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Public Information Officer,
The Registrar (Administration),
High Court, Madras.
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Central Information Commission,
2. Mr.B.Bharathi
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J
The Public Information Officer (Registrar (Administration) ), High Court,
Madras is the writ petitioner. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order
passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi (first respondent
herein), dated 23.1.2013, whereby the first respondent has directed the
petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the second respondent
herein, insofar as six appeals are concerned. In respect of other 47 complaints
are concerned, the first respondent-Commission directed the petitioner to send
statement of particulars regarding those complaints.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The second respondent, a native of Puducherry, has made several
applications/queries under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act') to the Madras High Court, seeking
information on various aspects. Out of several such applications/queries made
by the second respondent, the first respondent has directed the petitioner to
furnish the information as sought for by the second respondent in respect of the
following six applications/queries:
(i) Details of action taken on his complaint, dated 1.6.2011 against the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the details of enquiry
conducted thereon;
(ii) Details of recruitment rules for the post of Registrar General of High
Court, details of constitution of Selection Committee, recommendation made by
individual Judges and other information regarding the selection of various
3
individuals as Registrar Generals;
(iii) Details of action taken on earlier application, dated 31.10.2011
regarding the appointment and selection of Registrar General;
(iv) Copies of several petitions/appeals filed by the second respondent
and also the file notings made therein;
(v) Copy of earlier complaint, dated 10.12.2011 filed by the second
respondent against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the
action taken thereon;
(vi) Information as to what action taken regarding the complaint filed by
the second respondent, dated 20.9.2011 against inclusion of one Ms.Geetha
Ramaseshan as Advocate in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010 and the file notings
thereon.
3. Out of those six queries made by the second respondent, queries (i)
and (v) relate to the complaint made by the second respondent against the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Queries (ii) and (iii) relate to the
selection and appointment of Registrar General of High Court.
4. Insofar as query (i) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that on
receipt of the application, dated 5.12.2011 from the second respondent, the
petitioner, through communication, dated 20.1.2012, asked the second
respondent to come for inspection of necessary files. It is the further case of the
petitioner that though the inspection was fixed on 30.1.2012, the second
respondent sought time and accordingly, on 1.2.2012, the second respondent
was permitted to peruse the files regarding the action taken. However, in the
4
meantime, the second respondent filed an appeal to the Registrar General of
High Court complaining non-furnishing of information and the said appeal was
dismissed by the Registrar General on 6.11.2012 by relying on the decision of
the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.27734 of 2012.
5. Insofar as query (v) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the
second respondent was already informed through communication, dated
28.3.2012 that his complaint, dated 10.12.2011 has been closed. However, the
second respondent filed appeal to the Registrar General of this Court, wherein,
an order came to be passed on 12.6.2012, holding that nothing further was to be
done in this matter, as the second respondent was already informed on
28.3.2012 itself about the closing of his complaint, dated 10.12.2011.
6. Insofar as query (ii) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the
request of the second respondent was rejected by the petitioner on 25.11.2011
on the ground that earlier petition on similar lines, was rejected under Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the second respondent filed an appeal before
the Registrar General and thereafter, filed further appeal before the first
respondent herein, who in turn, by order dated 28.9.2012, directed furnishing of
the required information. Thereafter, on 8.11.2012, the petitioner furnished
query-wise information to the second respondent,
stating that there are no
recruitment rules for the post of Registrar General and that there is no Selection
Committee for that purpose. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that insofar as
the query regarding the Registrar General is concerned, the required information
has been supplied by the petitioner to the second respondent.
5
7. Insofar as query (iii) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that all
the required information as pointed out in respect of query (ii), had been
furnished to the second respondent on 8.11.2012.
8. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the
complaint petitions/queries made by the second respondent must be available
with him, since they are the complaint petitions/queries made by himself and
wherever those documents are available, the information was furnished to the
second respondent, through proceedings dated 23.4.2012.
9. Insofar as query (vi) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that his
request has been put up along with the case bundles in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of
2012, since the matter is sub-judice and pending before the High Court.
10. Not being satisfied with the intimation/information furnished by the
petitioner in respect of the abovesaid six cases, the second respondent
approached the first respondent-Commission by way of Second Appeals. Those
six Second Appeals were taken along with 47 complaints filed by the second
respondent himself for disposal by the first respondent.
11. After hearing both sides, the first respondent-Commission passed an
order on 23.1.2013 and directed the petitioner herein to prepare a tabular
statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the
second respondent insofar as those 47 complaints received by the first
respondent are concerned and further directed the petitioner to indicate with the
particulars about the current status of the action taken in those complaints and
send the statement to the first respondent-Commission within 20 working days
6
from the receipt of the order. Insofar as six Second Appeals are concerned, the
first respondent-Commission directed the petitioner to provide the desired
information sought for by the second respondent by way of attested photocopies
of the relevant documents including the file notings wherever available and any
correspondence made. The first respondent-Commission further ordered that in
case concerning the appointment of the Registrar General, the petitioner must
provide the photocopy of the file notings, if any, from the file in which the
proposal for appointment of the Registrar General had been processed and
finalised. Likewise, the first respondent-Commission ordered to provide the
photocopy of the relevant file notings, if any, from the file in which the second
respondent's complaint against the appointment of the Registrar General was
dealt with. In respect of the appointment of Public Prosecutors since 2006, the
first respondent directed the petitioner to provide the photocopies of the letters
containing the concurrence or otherwise of the High Court about specific
individuals proposed by the State Government. After making such an order, the
first respondent has also expressed a word of caution on the action of the
second respondent. It is specifically observed by the first respondent that the
disclosure of information must be commensurate and in conformity with the
smooth functioning of the public authorities and this particular case shows how a
single individual can overload a public authority and divert its resources rather
disproportionately while seeking information. Sending numerous complaints and
representations and then following those with the RTI applications, cannot be the
way to redress such grievances, is the other observation made by the first
7
respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent-Commission disposed of six
Second Appeals and postponed the proceedings in respect of other 47
complaints for receiving the statement from the petitioner.
12. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the
first respondent-Commission on the following grounds:
(a) Insofar as the query relating to the appointment of the Registrar
General of the High Court is concerned, the petitioner has already informed the
second respondent that there were no special recruitment rules for the post of
Registrar General and there was no Selection Committee for making such
recruitment. Likewise, in respect of the query concerning the action taken on the
complaint against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the
second respondent was informed that no action was taken and the matter was
closed.
(b) The information wherever available and permissible, had been
provided to the second respondent. However, the very attitude of the second
respondent in sending 53 applications to the High Court seeking information on
various issues, shows that his aim is to derail the administration by misusing the
RTI Act provisions and bring it to embarrassment and ridicule.
(c) The State Information Commission, by order dated 2.6.2012 in Order
No.20854/A/2012, had also passed strictures in another proceedings against the
offensive intimidatory act of the second respondent herein. The selection to the
post of Registrar General which is a sensitive post in the administrative set up of
the High Court, is not a matter to be discussed in public domain, especially
8
through the information sought for under the RTI Act. The post is essentially one
of trust reposed by the Honourable Chief Justice of High Court on a particular
individual and such selection by the Honourable Chief Justice of High Court is
vested under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be
made the subject of public discussion. Any further disclosure of information on
that issue is thoroughly unnecessary and unwarranted with no element of public
interest. Non-furnishing of such information is protected by Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act.
(d) The second respondent in one of the queries has sought for copies of
his own petitions and appeals. It is not known as to how the second respondent-
complainant can seek for those particulars which are admittedly sent by him and
presumably available with him.
13. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit. The crux of the
averments made therein is as follows:
(a) Insofar as case (i) is concerned, he perused the file on 3.2.2012, but
certified copies/copies of file notings or orders were not given as requested by
him.
(b) Insofar as case (ii) is concerned, the information sought for by the
second respondent on the selection of Registrar General is very important and
the petitioner gave the misleading and partial information on 8.11.2012, that too
after the issue of orders of the first respondent and till date, he has not received
the full information on the selection of the Registrar General of this High Court.
(c) Insofar as case (iii) is concerned, the information sought for is in
9
respect of the stepwise action taken on his complaint to the Honourable Chief
Justice on 31.10.2011 for a free and fair enquiry into the appointment of the
present Registrar General. The information was denied on 4.4.2012, i.e. after 30
days and no hearing was extended to the second respondent.
(d) Insofar as case (iv) is concerned, the second respondent sought for
the certified copies of his applications/complaints, because, he wanted to know
the comments/orders passed by the competent authority to whom he submitted
his application.
(e) Insofar as case (v) is concerned, he sought information on the
stepwise action taken on his complaint against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai and the information was denied by stating that his petition has
been ordered to be closed.
(f) Insofar as case (vi) is concerned, the Assistant Public Information
Officer disposed of the application submitted on 5.12.2011 by the second
respondent, who is not competent to dispose of the same.
(g) The Public Information Officer/Registrar General of this Court did not
act in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Public Information
Officer of this Court cannot be exempted from the rules or provisions of the RTI
Act. The second respondent's RTI applications are submitted for obtaining
information on public interest such as appointment of the Registrar General,
approval of the High Court to the Public Prosecutor, seniority list of the District
Judges and information of stepwise action taken on his complaint to the
Registrar General and the Registrar (Vigilance) and all his requests for
10
information are genuine. The rejection of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act cannot be done without giving reason.
(h) The directions issued by the first respondent to disclose the procedure
and file notes of the selection of the Registrar General is reasonable. The
President of India or the Chief Justice or any public authority cannot do selection
of the candidate as they please, whether it is a sensitive post or not. All the posts
starting from Group D to All India Service are filled by proper selection
procedure/recruitment rules. If the file notes of the selection of Registrar General
are not released, then it leads to unwarranted suspicion on the selection of the
Registrar General.
(i) The second respondent is seeking copies of his complaint or
application to find out the action taken or order passed by the competent
authority to whom the complaint/letter was addressed. The copies of the
complaints were sought because the second respondent did not have any copy.
There is a collusion between the Police officials, Public Prosecutor, State
Information Commission and Public Information Officer of this Court in stalling
the flowing of due information to him and thereby, deny him justice.
14. Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that what are all the information that could be furnished to the second
respondent, had been furnished, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
Writ Petition, except the minutes of the Judges and file notings, which cannot be
furnished to the second respondent. He further submitted that on 21.8.2014, the
second respondent was informed once again about the action taken on his
11
complaint against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. In all
other respects, the learned counsel reiterated the contentions raised in the
affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and in support of such submissions,
he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 (8) MLJ 122
(SC) (G.R.Deshpande Vs. Cen. Information Commr.) and the decisions of this
Court reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High Court of Madras
Vs. K.Elango), 2013 (5) MLJ 385 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs.
A.Kanagaraj), 2013 (5) MLJ 513 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs.
R.M.Subramanian) and 2013 (5) MLJ 694 (Registrar General, High Court of
Madras Vs.K.U.Rajasekar).
15. Per contra, the second respondent who is appearing as party-in-
person, reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and submitted
that the information sought for by the second respondent cannot be with-held by
the petitioner and the first respondent-Commission rightly passed an order
directing the petitioner to furnish those particulars to him.
16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the second respondent as party-in-person and perused the
materials available on record.
17. The present Writ Petition revolves around the object and scope of the
RTI Act, 2005 as well as the right of the second respondent to seek certain
informations from the High Court and the entitlement of the petitioner to with-hold
certain informations, out of all the informations sought for by the second
respondent, on the ground that they are not permissible to be disclosed, which
are discussed in detail below.
18. Before we go into the merits of the case, let us consider the relevant
12
provisions of the RTI Act for the purpose of deciding this case, which read as
follows:
The RTI Act defines "information" under Section 2(f) as follows:
"information" means any material in any form, including
records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press
releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers,
samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and
information relating to any private body which can be accessed by
a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Likewise, it defines "right to information"under Section 2(j) as follows:
"right to information" means the right to information
accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of
any public authority and includes the right to--
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or
records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies,
tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through
printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any
other device."
Section 3 of the RTI Act contemplates that all citizens shall have the right to
information, subject to the provisions of the Act. The RTI Act was enacted to
provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information to citizens to
secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to
promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
19. The scope and ambit of the RTI Act came up for consideration before
the Honourable Supreme Court on several occasions and in the following
decisions, the Supreme Court, after considering the same, has observed as
follows:
(a) In the decision reported in 2010 (2) SCC 1 (Khanapuram Gandaiah
Vs. Administrative Officer), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that
13
the applicant under the RTI Act cannot ask for any information as to why such
opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., have been passed, especially in matters
pertaining to judicial decisions, even though he is entitled to get copies of the
same.
(b) In 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), the
Honourable Supreme Court, while quoting the earlier decision reported in 2004
(2) SCC 476 (People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India), held that the
"right to information" is a facet of the freedom of "speech and expression", as
contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and such a right is
subject to any reasonable restriction in the interest of the security of the State
and subject to exemptions and exceptions. It is further observed therein in
paragraph 25 that certain safeguards have been built into the RTI Act, so that
revelation of information will not conflict with other public interests, which include
efficient operation of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources
and preservation of confidential and sensitive information.
(c) In the decision reported in 2012 (13) SCC 61 (Bihar Public Service
Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi), the Honourable Supreme Court
has considered the purpose, scheme and scope of the RTI Act, 2005 and found
that the "right to information" is not uncontrolled right, but subject to dual check,
namely inbuilt restrictions within the statute itself and secondly, Constitutional
limitations enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant
observations made in paragraphs 12, 14 and 15 of the said decision, read as
follows:
14
"12. Right to information is a basic and celebrated
fundamental/basic right but is not uncontrolled. It has its
limitations. The right is subject to a dual check. Firstly, this right
is subject to the restrictions inbuilt within the Act, and secondly,
the constitutional limitations emerging from Article 21 of the
Constitution. Thus, wherever in response to an application for
disclosure of information, the public authority takes shelter
under the provisions relating to exemption, non-applicability or
infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution, the State
Information Commission has to apply its mind and form an
opinion objectively if the exemption claimed for was sustainable
on facts of the case."
"14. Section 2(f) again is exhaustive in nature. The
legislature has given meaning to the expression "information"
and has stated that it shall mean any material in any form
including papers, samples, data material held in electronic form,
etc. Right to information under Section 2(j) means the "right to
information" accessible under this Act which is held by or under
the control of any public authority and includes the right to
inspection of work, documents, records, taking notes, extracts,
taking certified sample of materials, obtaining information in the
form of diskettes, floppies and video cassettes, etc. The right
sought to be exercised and information asked for should fall
within the scope of "information" and "right to information" as
defined under the Act."
"15. Thus, what has to be seen is whether the information
sought for in exercise of the right to information is one that is
permissible within the framework of law as prescribed under the
Act. If the information called for falls in any of the categories
specified under Section 8 or relates to the organisations to
which the Act itself does not apply in terms of Section 24 of the
Act, the public authority can take such stand before the
Commission and decline to furnish such information. Another
aspect of exercise of this right is that where the information
asked for relates to third-party information, the Commission is
required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of
the Act."
(d) In the decision reported in 2012 (8) MLJ 122 (SC) (G.R.Deshpande Vs.
Cen. Information Commr.), the Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 13 and
15 as under:
15
"13. ... The performance of an employee/officer in an
organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the
employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service
rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the
disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public
interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a
given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the
larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,
appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim
those details as a matter of right.
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide
public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such
information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the
individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act"
20. Under the RTI Act, a citizen of this country has a right to information
as defined under Sections 2(f) and 2(j), of course, subject to certain restrictions
as provided under the Act. What information one can seek and what right one
can have, are specifically contemplated under Sections 2(f) and 2(j) respectively.
However, the word "right" is not defined under the RTI Act. In the absence of any
definition of "right", it has to be understood to mean that such "right" must have a
legal basis. Therefore, the "right" must be coupled with an object or purpose to
be achieved. Such object and purpose must, undoubtedly, have a legal basis or
be legally sustainable and enforceable. It cannot be construed that a request or
query made 'simpliciter', will fall under the definition of "right to information". The
"right" must emanate from legally sustainable claim. There is a difference
between the "right to information" and the "right to seek information". It is like the
"right to property" and the "right to claim property". In the former, such right is
already accrued and vested with the seeker, whereas, in the latter, it is yet to
accrue or get vested. Likewise, a person who seeks information under the RTI
16
Act, must show that the information sought for is either for his personal interest
or for a public interest. Under both circumstances, the information seeker must
disclose atleast with bare minimum details as to what is the personal interest or
the public interest, for which such information is sought for. If such details are
either absent or not disclosed, such query cannot be construed as the one
satisfying the requirement of the RTI Act. The restrictions imposed under the RTI
Act, though are in respect of providing certain informations, certainly, there are
certain inbuilt restrictions imposed on the applicant as well.
21. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision
reported in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), such right to
seek information cannot be construed or claimed as an unfettered right to seek
any information and on the other hand, such right being a facet of the freedom of
"speech and expression", as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India, is always subject to reasonable restriction. No doubt, Section 3 of the RTI
Act contemplates that all citizens shall have the "right to information". At the
same time, when such "right to information" is not an unfettered right and on the
other hand, is subject to reasonable restriction, it has to be held that such right
cannot be sought to be enforced as a matter of routine or as a matter of course,
without disclosing as to whether such right is being exercised to get an
information to achieve a legally enforceable or achievable object. In other words,
prima-facie, an applicant must disclose the object for which such an information
is sought for and also satisfy that such object has a legal backing. If informations
are to be furnished to a person, who does not have any reason or object behind
17
seeking such informations, in our considered view, the intention of the
Legislature is not to the effect that such informations are to be given like
pamphlets to any person unmindful of the object behind seeking such
information. We should not be mistaken as if we are saying something against
the intention of the Legislature. What we want to emphasise is that a Legislation,
more particularly, the one on hand, must achieve the object, viz., concrete and
effective functioning of the public authority with transparency and accountability
by providing the information which are under the control of such public
authorities. If the "right" provided under the RTI Act is misused, either as an
intimidation or as a threat against the effective functioning of the public
authorities, or such conduct would deviate the administration from its effective
functioning, the Courts will always weigh the balance and lift the veil to find out
as to whether the applicant has sought the information with bona-fide intention
and as to whether such information has any relevance for his request. It is
needless to say that while the "use" is to be encouraged, the "misuse" has to be
curtailed and nibbed at the bud.
22. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the present case.
The issue involved in this case is as to whether the disputed information sought
for by the second respondent and as directed by the first respondent-
Commission to furnish, can be furnished or not. The said issue is no more "res-
integra", in view of the earlier decisions of this Court in the following cases:
(a) It is relevant to notice that similar issue arose before a Division Bench
of this Court in respect of the information relating to the employees of the
18
Subordinate Courts/Judicial Officers, etc., in the decision reported in 2013 (5)
MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango), wherein the
Division Bench in paragraph 59 has observed that the notings, jottings,
administrative letters, intricate internal discussions, deliberations etc., of the High
Court cannot be brought under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act and furnishing of those
information will certainly impede and hinder the regular, smooth and proper
functioning of the institution. The relevant paragraphs 59 to 61 of the abovesaid
decision are extracted hereunder:
"59. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of
respective contentions and on going through the contents of the
application
dated
01.11.2010
filed
by
the
1st
Respondent/Applicant, this Court is of the considered view that
the information sought for by him in Serial Nos.1 to 9 pertaining to
the internal delicate functioning/administration of the High Court
besides the same relate to invasion of privacy of respective
individuals if the informations so asked for are furnished and
more so, the informations sought for have no relationship to any
public activity or interest. Moreover, the informations sought for
by the 1st Respondent/ Applicant, through his application dated
01.11.2010 addressed to the Public Information Officer of the
High Court, Chennai, are not to a fuller extent open to public
domain. Added further, if the informations sought for by the 1st
Respondent/Applicant, through his letter dated 01.11.2010
addressed to the Public Information Officer of High Court, are
divulged, then, it will open floodgates/Pandora Box compelling the
Petitioner/High Court to supply the informations sought for by the
concerned Requisitionists as a matter of routine, without any
rhyme or reasons/restrictions as the case may be. Therefore,
some self restrictions are to be imposed in regard to the supply of
informations in this regard. As a matter of fact, the Notings,
Jottings, Administrative Letters, Intricate Internal Discussions,
Deliberations etc. of the Petitioner/High Court cannot be brought
under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in our
considered opinion of this Court. Also that, if the informations
relating to Serial Nos.1 to 9 mentioned in the application of the
1st Respondent/Applicant dated 01.11.2010 are directed to be
furnished or supplied with, then, certainly, it will impede and
hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the
19
Institution viz., High Court (an independent authority under the
Constitution of India, free from Executive or Legislature), as
opined by this Court. As such, a Saner Counsel/Balancing Act is
to be adopted in matters relating to the application of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, so that an adequate freedom and inbuilt
safeguard can be provided to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High
Court competent authority and public authority as per Section
2(e)(iii) and 2(h)(a) of the Act 22 of 2005 in exercising his
discretionary powers either to supply the information or to deny
the information, as prayed for by the Applicants/Requisitionists
concerned.
60. Apart from the above, if the informations requested by
the 1st Respondent/Applicant, based on his letter dated
01.11.2010, are supplied with, then, it will have an adverse
impact on the regular and normal, serene functioning of the High
Court's Office on the Administrative side. Therefore, we come to
an irresistible conclusion that the 1st Respondent/Applicant is not
entitled to be supplied with the informations/details sought for by
him, in his Application dated 01.11.2010 addressed to the Public
Information Officer of the High Court, Madras under the
provisions of the Right to Information Act. Even on the ground of
(i) maintaining confidentiality; (ii) based on the reason that the
private or personal information is exempted from disclosure under
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005; and (iii) also under Section
8(1)(e) of the Act in lieu of fiduciary relationship maintained by the
High Court, the request of the 1st Respondent/Applicant, through
his Letter dated 01.11.2010/Appeal dated 20.12.2010 under
Section 19 of the Act to the Writ Petitioner/Appellate Authority,
cannot be acceded to by this Court. Further, we are of the
considered view that the 1st Respondent/Applicant has no locus
standi to seek for the details sought for by him, as stated supra,
in a wholesale, omnibus and mechanical fashion in the subject
matter in issue, (either as a matter of right/routine under the Right
to Information Act) because of the simple reason that he has no
enforceable legal right. Also, we opine that the 1st
Respondent/Applicant's requests, through his Application dated
01.11.2010 and his Appeal dated 20.12.2010, suffer from want of
bona fides (notwithstanding the candid fact that Section 6 of the
Right to Information Act does not either overtly or covertly refers
to the 'concept of Locus').
61. To put it differently, if the informations sought for by the
1st
Respondent/Applicant,
through
his
letter
dated
01.11.2010/Appeal dated 20.12.2010, are divulged or furnished
by the Office of the High Court (on administrative side), then, the
secrecy and privacy of the internal working process may get
jeopardised, besides the furnishing of said informations would
20
result in invasion of unwarranted and uncalled for privacy of
individuals concerned. Even the disclosure of informations
pertaining to departmental enquiries in respect of Disciplinary
Actions initiated against the Judicial Officers/Officials of the
Subordinate Court or the High Court will affect the facile, smooth
and independent running of the administration of the High Court,
under the Constitution of India. Moreover, as per Section 2(e) of
the read with Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, the
Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court is empowered to frame rules to
carry out the provisions of the Act. In this regard, we point out that
'Madras High Court Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and
Cost) Rules, 2007' have been framed vide R.O.C.No.2636-
A/06/F1-SRO C-3/2008 in Tamil Nadu Gazette, No.20, dated
21.05.2008, Pt.III, S.2. Also, a Notification, in Roc.No.976
A/2008/RTI dated 18.11.2008, has been issued by this Court to
the said Rules, by bringing certain amendments in regard to the
Name and Designation of the Officers mentioned therein, the
same has come into force from 18.11.2008."
(b) In the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 513 (Registrar General, High
Court of Madras Vs. R.M.Subramanian), a Division Bench of this Court observed
in paragraphs 94 to 96 as follows:
"94. To put it succinctly, the copies of Minutes recorded by
the Hon'ble Portfolio Judge, Pudukottai District dated 16.12.2010
and the Minutes recorded by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on
07.03.2011 in the Criminal Contempt Petition issue, cannot be
furnished or supplied to the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, for the
purpose of maintaining utmost confidentiality and secrecy of the
delicate function of the internal matters of High Court. If the copies
of the Minutes dated 16.12.2010 and 07.03.2011, as claimed by the
1st Respondent/Petitioner, are furnished, then, it will definitely make
an inroad to the proper, serene function of the Hon'ble High Court—
being an Independent Authority under the Constitution of India.
Moreover, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court [as Competent
Authority - Public Authority under Section 2(e)(iii) and 2(h)(a) of the
Act, 22 of 2005 and also Plenipotentiary in the Judicial hierarchy]
can be provided with an enough freedom and inbuilt safeguards in
exercising his discretionary powers either to furnish the information
or not to part with the information, as prayed for by any applicant
much less the 1st Respondent/Petitioner.
95. That apart, if the copies of the Minutes dated 16.12.2010
and 07.03.2011 are supplied to the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, then,
21
the interest of the administration of the High Court will get
jeopardised and also it will perforce the Petitioner/High Court to
furnish the informations sought for by the concerned
Applicants/Requisitionists as a matter of usual course without any
qualms or rhyme or reasons/restrictions. In effect, to uphold the
dignity and majesty of the Hon'ble High Court - being an
Independent Authority under the Constitution of India, some self-
restrictions are to be imposed as regards the supply of
internal/domestic functioning of the Hon'ble High Court and its office
informations in respect of matters which are highly confidential in
nature inasmuch as it concerns with the Intricate, Internal
Discussions and Deliberations, Notings, Jottings and Administrative
Decisions taken on various matters at different levels and as such,
they are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(e)(i)(j) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005. Even otherwise, they are not open to
litigants/public without restrictions. No wonder, it can be fittingly
observed that if Impartiality is the Soul of Judiciary, then,
Independence is the Life Blood of Judiciary. Also that, without
Independence, Impartiality cannot thrive/survive.
96. In short, if the informations sought for by the 1st
Respondent/ Petitioner are furnished, then, it will prejudicially affect
the confidential interest, privacy and well being of the High Court, in
the considered opinion of this Court. In any event, the 1st
Respondent/Petitioner cannot invoke the aid of Clause 37 of
Amended Letters Patent dealing with 'Regulation of Proceedings'
and also Order XII [pertaining to the entitlement of Certified Copies]
of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, since
they are not applicable to him."
23. In this case, insofar as queries (i) and (v) are concerned, the
information sought for by the second respondent is with regard to the action
taken on his complaint against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai. It is seen that insofar as query (i) is concerned, the petitioner has
called upon the second respondent to peruse the files regarding the action taken
on the second respondent's complaint, dated 1.6.2011. In the counter affidavit,
the second respondent admitted that he perused the files on 3.2.2012 and
however, certified copies/copies of the file notings or orders were not given to
22
him. Insofar query (v) is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner has informed the
second respondent on 28.3.2012 that his complaint, dated 10.12.2011 filed
against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, had been closed.
In fact, the said fact is not disputed by the second respondent. On the other
hand, in the counter affidavit, the second respondent admitted that through
communication, dated 28.3.2012, he was informed that his petition had been
ordered to be closed. Apart from the abovesaid fact, during the pendency of the
present Writ Petition, the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court has informed the
second respondent through communication, dated 21.8.2014 about the action
taken on his complaint against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai, informing as follows:
"Sir,
Sub: Furnishing of information - Regarding.
Ref: Your complaint dated 02.06.2011 and 29.09.2011,
01.11.2011, 31.10.2011, 10.12.2011
----
I am to inform you that your complaint dated 02.06.2011
made against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (name not
mentioned), Egmore, Chennai has been received and assigned
Roc.No.409/2011/VC. On perusal of the complaint, the Hon'ble The
Chief Justice has been ordered as "Report may be called for from
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and on perusal of
the report submitted, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has ordered as
"Report may be accepted and closed."
Further I am to inform that the complaints dated 29.09.2011,
01.11.2011, 31.10.2011 and 10.12.2011 has been received and
assigned
Roc.No.6425/2011/VC/Tapal,
6428/2011/VC/Tapal,
6430/2011/VC/Tapal and 716/2012/VC/Tapal and they were
ordered to be placed before the Hon'ble Administrative Committee
and the Hon'ble Administrative Committee resolved to hold an
enquiry pertaining to the allegations against the Subordinate
Judicial Officer and staff members of the High Court by the
Registrar (Vigilance) and on perusal of the enquiry report, the
23
Hon'ble Administrative Committee has resolved to close the
proceedings initiated.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Registrar (Vigilance)"
24. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, we find that
the second respondent cannot have any grievance, as the petitioner has
permitted the second respondent to peruse the files regarding the action taken
and also informed him of the fact that his complaint had been ordered to be
closed. However, the second respondent contends that the file notings and other
minutes sought for in his complaint were not furnished. Such information cannot
be furnished to the second respondent, as held by this Court in the decision
reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134 (cited supra).
25. Insofar as queries (ii) and (iii) are concerned, the second respondent
was informed by the petitioner that there are no recruitment rules for the post of
Registrar General and there is no Selection Committee for that post. In the
absence of any such information being available, the second respondent cannot
compel the petitioner to furnish the same. Even otherwise, as already observed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134
(Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango), furnishing of those
information with regard to the Registrar General which has been done by the
Honourable Chief Justice of this Court, cannot be brought under the purview of
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, as, such information pertain to the internal intricate
functioning/administration of the High Court and such information has no
24
relationship with any public activity or interest. As observed by the Division
Bench therein, certainly, furnishing of those information will hinder the regular,
smooth and proper functioning of the institution, unnecessarily warranting
scrupulous litigations. In fact, a perusal of the pleadings, more particularly, the
application made by the second respondent as well as the counter affidavit filed
in this Writ Petition, would show that the second respondent has not disclosed
even the basic reason for seeking those informations. On the other hand, he has
made those applications mechanically, as a matter of routine under the RTI Act.
The Division Bench of this Court, in the said decision, has also observed that the
first respondent in that Writ Petition who is similar to the present second
respondent, has no locus-standi to seek for the details sought for by him, as he
has no enforceable legal right. Further, posting a Senior District Judge as
Registrar General by the Honourable Chief Justice is in exercise of powers
conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the second
respondent or any other person including other Judges, has no say in the said
matter. The said issue is already settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in
the decision reported in 1998 (3) SCC 72 (High Court Judicature for Rajasthan
Vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal) and in paragraph 38, the Honourable Supreme
Court held that under the Constitutional Scheme, Chief Justice is the supreme
authority and other Judges, so far as officers and servants of the High Court are
concerned, have no role to play on the administrative side. The said position is
reiterated in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 (1)
MLJ 289 (SC) (Registrar General Vs. R.Perachi).
25
26. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the
second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his
own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the
information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand,
admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and
therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and
he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will
preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those
documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second
respondent in this aspect.
27. Insofar as query (vi) is concerned, admittedly, the matter is sub-judice
and pending before the High Court in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010. To that effect,
already information had been furnished by the petitioner to the second
respondent on 13.3.2012 informing that his petition has been put up along with
the case bundle. Therefore, the second respondent is not entitled to get any
information with regard to the proceedings pending before the Court of Law and
if at all he wants any document relating to the pending case/cases, he has to
only apply for certified copy and obtain the same in terms of the Rules framed by
the High Court. No doubt, the second respondent is seeking information
regarding the action taken against inclusion of one Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan as
Advocate in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010. Since his complaint has been put up
along with the case bundle, which is pending before Court, the petitioner,
26
certainly, is precluded from furnishing any information, as the matter is seized of
by the Court in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010 on its judicial side.
28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as stated
above and also going by the earlier decisions rendered by the Honourable
Supreme Court and the Division Benches of this Court, cited supra, we are of the
view that the present case is squarely covered by those decisions against the
second respondent, and therefore, the second respondent is not entitled to get
the information in respect of those six appeals by way of attested file copies of
the relevant documents including the file notings and the correspondences made
thereon. The impugned order of the first respondent-Commission in directing the
petitioner to furnish those information, is erroneous and not sustainable, in view
of the earlier decisions rendered by this Court and the Honourable Supreme
Court as discussed supra. Hence, the impugned order passed by the first
respondent-Commission insofar as six appeals are concerned, is liable to be set
aside.
29. Insofar as the other 47 complaints wherein the first respondent-
Commission has passed an order directing the petitioner to prepare a tabular
statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the
second respondent, are concerned, we are not in a position to understand as to
what are those 47 complaints or applications made by the second respondent
and what are the informations that are sought for in those queries. A perusal of
the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Commission does not
indicate any detail with regard to those 47 complaint cases. In the absence of
27
those material details, we are not in a position to appreciate the order passed by
the first respondent-Commission directing the petitioner to prepare a tabular
statement listing all the complaints and the representations received from the
second respondent being dealt with on the administrative and judicial sides of
this Court and the current status of the action taken thereon. Therefore, we are
of the view that the impugned order of the first respondent is bereft of any
material particulars insofar as those 47 RTI applications referred to in the
impugned order and the direction issued to the petitioner in that regard is also
not sustainable.
30. In fact, the first respondent-Commission itself has deprecated the
practice of the second respondent herein in overloading the Registry of this
Court by making several queries or complaints one after another and following
the same under the RTI Act. Having found that the action of the second
respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then
following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress
his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources
disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of
information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public
authority, as it would be against the larger public interest, the first respondent-
Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition,
directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as
sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations
received from the second respondent.
28
31. For the foregoing reasonings, the impugned order of the first
respondent-Commission is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment