Details of inquiry initiated on complaint against the Delhi HC Judge - PIO: issue is pending before the SC and a stay is granted in the SLP; information exempt u/s 8(1)(e), 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) - CIC: order reserved subject to the outcome of the case
21 Nov, 2013Details of inquiry initiated on complaint against the Judge of Delhi HC - PIO: issue is pending before the SC and a stay is granted in the aforesaid SLP; information exempt u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; , 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. - CIC: reserved the judgment while accepting the argument of the PIO and advised the appellant to agitate the matter before the Commission subject to the outcome of the case
Facts:
1. RTI application dated 1 October 2012 was submitted by the applicant before the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, to obtain information regarding the details of the action/inquiry initiated by the Office of the Chief Justice of India on his complaint dated 04/07/2012 against the Hon’ble Judge, Delhi High Court.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 29 October 2012, the CPIO informed that the issue of providing information relating to complaints against the Hon’ble Judges is subjudice before the Hon’ble SC in SLP No. 3285556/ 2009, which is converted into Civil Appeal No. 1004545/ 2010 and a stay is granted in the aforesaid SLP. Further the CPIO held that the information sought is confidential and exempted under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 and that the information sought is not held by or under the control of the CPIO and disclosure of information and reports emanating out of self- evolved mechanism is expressly prohibited in terms of SC’s order in Indira Jaising vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, hence exempted under section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; of the RTI Act.
3. The aforesaid reply failed to satisfy the appellant and he preferred appeal dated 27 November 2012 before the FAA.
4. Matter was decided vide FAA order dated 16 December 2012, by which the FAA dismissed the appeal.
5. Not satisfied with the order of the FAA, the appellant had preferred second appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today. Both parties as above appeared in person and made submissions. It was stated by the CPIO that in the present matter, the issue is substantially the matter in issue in civil appeal Nos. 10044 – 45 of 2010 and hence the principal of subjudice will apply. Also that a stay is granted in the aforesaid matter.
Decision notice
7. After hearing both parties Commission reserves judgement in the present matter while accepting the argument of the CPIO as recorded above. Appellant is free to agitate the matter before the Commission subject to the outcome of the case referred to above.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Ajay Chowdhry v. Supreme Court of India in Appeal: No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000514/DS