Appellant: Why litigants are forced to take oath in the name of ‘God’ while deposing in court? - Respondent: Information is in the form of a query which does not come within the definition of ‘information’ u/s 2(f) - CIC: No further intervention required
21 Oct, 2017ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 29.10.2015 seeking information as to why litigants are forced to take oath in the name of ‘God’ while deposing in court; law under which Advocates are allowed to set up ‘Bar Associations Office’ and avail the related facilities (free electricity, free office, water bill etc.) inside the court premises etc.
2. The CPIO response is not on record. The appellant filed first appeal dated 10.12.2015 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
The FAA response is not on record.
The appellant filed second appeal on 15.03.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to her.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent was absent.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent has not given him a reply till date.
Discussion/ observation:
5. The respondent should furnish a reply to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision:
6. The respondent is directed to take action as per para 5 above.
7. The respondent is further directed to show cause, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, why action should not be taken against him for trying to deny information by not attending the hearing.
8. The respondent is also directed to show cause, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, why penalty should not be imposed on him for not providing the sought for information within the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act.
9. The Deputy Registrar is directed to fix a hearing for compliance after 30 days.
Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
Sd/-
Radha Krishna Mathur)
Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2016/000794
ADJUNCT ORDER DATED 29.09.2017
Hearing:
1. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent participated in the hearing in person. Mr. Anand T.R. (Assistant Section Officer) represented the respondent.
2. The matter is listed today for further hearing in the matter.
3. The appellant stated that the respondent should provide him the sought for information.
4. The respondent stated that the sought for information is in the form of a query which does not come within the definition of ‘information’ u/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; of the RTI Act. Further, he stated that they are not obliged to give information in the nature of the legal opinion sought by the appellant. In this regard, they have furnished a reply to the appellant on 15.09.2017. The reply given was read out and was found to be satisfactory.
Discussion/ observation:
5. The Commission is of the opinion that for getting the information on point no. 3 to 5 of this RTI application (facilities extended to BAR Associations and waiting room for litigants), the appellant may approach Court/High Court about which he seeks information.
6. The action/steps taken by the respondent in giving reply in response to the RTI application is satisfactory. Further, the given show cause reply is also satisfactory.
Decision:
7. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. The show cause is dropped. The appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Ashim Deb v. Ministry of Law & Justice in Appeal Nos. CIC/SA/A/2016/000794, Dated of Decision: 28.08.2017