Appellant wanted to obtain copies of notification/rules/regulation etc. pertaining to the term “Samadahan” - PIO replied that the request is not covered under section 2(f) of the RTI Act as PIO is not expected to interpret the law - CIC: order upheld
12 May, 2014ORDER
The present appeal, filed by Shri Gaurav Arora against Supreme Court of India, was taken up for hearing on 24.04.2014 when the Respondents were present through Ms. Asha Ahuja, AR and Ms. Sania Husaini, Advocate. The Appellant was represented by Shri S. Bajaj, Advocate.
2. The Appellant through an RTI application dated 16.11.2012 wanted to obtain copies of notification/rules/regulation etc. pertaining to the term “Samadahan”.
3. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.12.2012 informed the Appellant that his request is not covered under section 2(f) “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; “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; of the RTI Act. She mentioned that it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of the CPIO under the RTI Act to interpret the law, judgments/orders of the court, to take action or to direct an authority to take action, to give explanation, opine, comment or advise on matters.
4. Aggrieved by the CPIOs reply, the Appellant filed an appeal dated 09.01.2013 before the Appellate Authority which the Appellate Authority decided vide order dated 02.02.2013 upholding the CPIO’s reply.
5. The Appellant then filed the present appeal before the Commission challenging the Respondents’ decision.
6. Having heard the submissions and perused the records, the Commission agrees with the Respondents that the queries made by the Appellant in his present RTI application do not qualify to be a request for information within the meaning of section 2(f) “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; “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; of the RTI Act. Therefore no disclosure can be authorised with regard to the same.
7. Appeal thus fails and is rejected.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Gaurav Arora v. Supreme Court of India in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000808SS