During the hearing, it was agreed by both the parties that no final
decision has been taken by the authorities concerned about setting up of the
benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi and that the matter is still under
discussion with the stakeholders. We find force in the arguments of the
respondent that the information sought, if disclosed at this stage, could lead to
needless controversy of a political nature, which should best be avoided taking
into account the need for efficient functioning of the Supreme Court. It is felt
that the disclosure of this sensitive information could arouse regional feelings
leading to law and order problems. Hence, this case falls under section 8(1)
(a) of the Act.
Central Information Commission
Case No.: CIC/SM/A/2013/000863/SS
Present:-
Complainant:
Shri Rajiv Rufus,
Advocate,
Plot No. 17, 6th Cross Street,
Karpaganagar, K. Pudur,
Madurai (Tamil Nadu)-625 007.
(Absent)
Respondent:
Ms Smita Vats Sharma
CPIO (RTI) & Addl. Registrar,
Supreme Court of India,
Tilak Marg,
New Delhi
Date of Decision : 31st October, 2014
When the matter was taken up, Shri R.K. Jain, resident of 1512-B,
Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi-110003 moved an application
dated 16.7.2014 for intervention in the matter. This was allowed.
2.
The appellant did not appear. The respondent was represented by Shri
Rohit Sharma, Advocate. Ms Smita Vats Sharma, Additional Registrar & CPIO,
Supreme Court of India was also present.
3.
The appellant vide his application dated 21.8.2012 under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (the Act) sought information on 10 points from the
Supreme Court. He sought information inter alia about the copies of minutes
of the meeting of the full court of the Supreme Court, the file notings and letters
sent by the Chief Justice of India to the Parliamentary Standing Committee
relating to the setting up of benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi.
1
4.
In a reply dated 26.9.2012, the Additional Registrar & CPIO informed the
appellant with respect to point nos. 1,3,4 and 5 that the resolutions of the full
court meetings of the Supreme Court are based on opinions expressed
confidentially by the Hon’ble Judges in the course of discussions. The
respondents stated that these are confidential and that divulging the same
would make the system unworkable in practice. Hence, the information was
denied u/s 8(1) (g) of the Act. Points nos.2 and 6 to 8 were stated to be vague
in nature.
With respect to point no. 9, i.e., about any publications
effected/done by the Supreme Court relating to the establishing of benches of
the Supreme Court outside Delhi, it was stated that there was no such
publication by the Supreme Court. With respect to point no. 10, regarding the
furnishing of a copy of all the publications by the Supreme Court about the
procedures followed in the decision making process relating to the establishing
of benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi, it was informed that the same
is available on its website.
5.
The appellant filed first appeal dated 29.10.2012 which was dismissed
vide order dated 24.12.2012 as being without any merit.
6.
In the second appeal, it has been contended, inter alia, that
(i) the CPIO and the first appellate authority have mechanically
invoked the exemption provisions without sufficient application of
mind;
(ii) providing of the information would help in greater citizens’
participation with an informed citizenry;
(iii) the non-disclosure of information is against the principle
enshrined in article 50 of the Constitution;
(iv) the CPIO and the first appellate authority may not have clarified
as to whose life would be endangered by the disclosure of
information. Invoking section 8(1) (g) is bad in law;
(v) the first appellate authority has not taken into consideration the
severability clause contained in section 10 of the Act.
It has been prayed that this Commission may direct the CPIO/first
appellate authority to provide him all the information free of cost under section
7(6) of the Act. It has also been prayed that this Commission invoke its powers
under section 19(8) (a)(iii) and (v) of the Act and direct the CPIO to proactively
2
publish the decision of the relevant full bench references and , procedures for
such sittings ,etc.
7.
In the counter to the written submissions of the respondent as aforesaid,
the appellant has stated inter alia that –
(i)
the decision of the CPIO to invoke section 8(1) (a) of the Act is
facetious and demonstrates lack of application of mind;
(ii)
the claims of the respondents are in complete violation of the
letter and spirit of the Act. The ground of refusal is not covered by section 8(1)
(a) of the Act;
(iii)
the claim that the disclosure would cause undue politicization of
the issue is completely unfounded;
(iv)
the establishment of the benches of the Supreme Court outside
Delhi has a direct relationship with peoples access to speedy and effective
justice;
(v)
the Commission has to examine the records and to determine as
to whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected
interests under section 8(2) of the Act.
8.
Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent relied upon the written
submissions dated 08.05.2014 filed on behalf of the CPIO and submitted that
the extracts of the operative portion of four full court resolutions on the issue of
setting up of benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi for the years 1999,
2001, 2004 and 2010 have been supplied to the appellant. As there was no
full court resolutions in this regard in the year 2006, no information could be
provided. He submitted that complete full court resolutions and the relevant
documents cannot be divulged under section 8(1) (a) of the Act as the issue
relating to the setting up of benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi is a
sensitive issue and its disclosure would lead to politicization of the matter. It
was stated that the disclosure will not be in the interest of the efficient
functioning of the Supreme Court. He stressed that disclosure of the
information requested would compromise the internal security interest of the
country due to potential law and order problems. In his support, he relied upon
the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs Aditya
Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 and the order dated 09.07.2013 of this
Commission in case no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000074 – M. Pari vs CPIO, Supreme
Court of India. He further submitted that this is not a case where the
information sought should be disclosed in public interest.
3
9.
Shri R.K. Jain submitted that the reply of the CPIO and the order of the
first appellate authority do not disclose under which item of clause (a) of
section 8(1), the disclosure is exempt. He further submitted that the comments
or views expressed during the full court meetings are not personal and are part
of the decision making process in a matter. The question is about openness of
the views expressed and mere confidentiality is not a ground to claim
exemption. The judgement in case of Aditya Bandopadhyay relates to
fiduciary relationship and is not relevant to decide the present case. He further
submitted that right to justice is a fundamental right and since the Supreme
Court is functioning only from Delhi, everybody has to come to Delhi to file or
defend the case before it. He further submitted that in the interest of
democracy and transparency, the minutes of the various committees of the
Supreme Court cannot be withheld. Section 8(1) (a) of the Act is inapplicable.
Even if it applies, the desired information has to be disclosed in public interest
under section 8(2) of the Act.
Discussion:
10.
We have gone through the contents of the appeal and the written
submissions of the parties.
11.
The issue in the matter is as to whether the information regarding the
meetings of the Court relating to the setting up of benches of the Supreme
Court outside Delhi is exempt under section 8(1) (a) of the Act.
12.
Section 8(1) of the Act enumerates the categories of information which
are exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Act. The relevant
extracts of section 8 are as under:-
“8.
Exemption from disclosure of information – (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give
any citizen, -
information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or
economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to
incitement of an offence;
(a)
xxx
(2)
Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of
1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with
sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to
4
information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to
the protected interests.”
13.
In the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay, while discussing the scope of
section 8 of the Act, the Supreme Court observed that “Some High Courts
have held that section 8 of RTI Act is in the nature of an exception to section
3...therefore section 8 should be construed strictly, literally and narrowly. This
may not be the correct approach. The Act seeks to bring about a balance
between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for
preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability
by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The
other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not
conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the
governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information. The court further observed that the
preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise
these two conflicting interests.” The Court further observed that “The Courts
and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of RTI Act have to
adopt a purposive construction, involving a reasonable and balanced approach
which harmonizes the two objects of the Act, while interpreting section 8 and
the other provisions of the Act.”
14.
In case no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000074 – M. Pari vs CPIO, Supreme Court
of India, this Commission was concerned with the matter relating to disclosure
of comments of the Chief Justice of India on a proposal regarding the
introduction of Hindi language in certain High Courts in the country. In its
decision dated 09.07.2013, this Commission held that the information if
disclosed prematurely, before it is finally decided after wide consultation with
all the stakeholders, can always cause serious law and order problems as the
information could be interpreted variously by all interested parties to arouse
regional emotions. It was held that exemption contained in section 8(1) (a) of
the Act was attracted.
15.
During the hearing, it was agreed by both the parties that no final
decision has been taken by the authorities concerned about setting up of the
benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi and that the matter is still under
discussion with the stakeholders. We find force in the arguments of the
respondent that the information sought, if disclosed at this stage, could lead to
needless controversy of a political nature, which should best be avoided taking
5
into account the need for efficient functioning of the Supreme Court. It is felt
that the disclosure of this sensitive information could arouse regional feelings
leading to law and order problems. Hence, this case falls under section 8(1)
(a) of the Act.
16.
In the light of the above discussion, we agree to the submissions made
by the respondent that the view taken in the matter of M. Pari referred to above
is attracted in this case.
17.
We do not find any tenable reason in the submissions of the appellant
and of Shri Jain to disclose the sought information in public interest under
section 8(2) of the Act.
Decision:
18.
In view of above, we are not inclined to allow the disclosure of
information regarding the meetings of the full court of the Supreme Court
relating to setting up of its benches outside Delhi.
19.
The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
Information Commissioner
Commissioner
(Manjula Prasher)
Information
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
No comments:
Post a Comment