Information regarding the meetings of the Supreme Court relating to the setting up of its benches outside Delhi was denied u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: no final decision has been taken & the disclosure could arouse regional feelings leading to law & order problems
14 Mar, 2015Information regarding the meetings of the Supreme Court relating to the setting up of its benches outside Delhi was denied u/s 8(1)(a) 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; - CIC: no final decision has been taken in the matter & the disclosure 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 - CIC: It is felt that the disclosure of this sensitive information could arouse regional feelings leading to law and order problems
ORDER
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.
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 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) 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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.
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) 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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, -
(a) 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;
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 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 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) 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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) (Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner Information Commissioner
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Rajiv Rufus v. Supreme Court of India in Case No.: CIC/SM/A/2013/000863/SS