CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B - Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001364
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : Ms. Iqbal Kaur
(Represented through Shri Inderjeet Singh)
Respondent : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi (through Shri S. Hanumantha Rao, Deputy
Registrar & CPIO and Shri Yatinder Kumar Sakkarwal,
UDC & ACPIO)
Date of Hearing: 12/12/2011
ORDER
1. The Appellant through her RTI Application dated 28/01/2011 had sought the copy of the complete case file including order sheets and judgment in Revision Petition No.914 of 2010 titled as ‘Simran Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. Naresh Sidramappa Upase & others’ which was decided on 17/03/2010 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“NCDRC”).
2. The then ACPIO of the NCDRC had replied to the said RTI Application on 14/02/2011 and informed the Appellant that such information in the nature of judicial documents cannot be provided to third parties like the Appellant, who was not involved in the said revision petition case. The ACPIO relied on an order dated 18/09/2007 passed by this Commission in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 titled as ‘Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. ITAT’. The ACPIO stated that as per the decision in Rakesh Kumar Gupta’s case (supra), Section 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act does not apply to judicial proceedings and therefore, the judicial records cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
3. When the Appellant preferred first appeal before the FAA of NCDRC, the said FAA through his Order dated 11/04/2011 upheld the reply given by the ACPIO. Though the FAA noted that the Appellant may inspect the judicial file of the said revision petition, yet he agreed with the CPIO to the extent that copy of judicial records cannot be supplied under the RTI Act. Aggrieved henceforth, the Appellant has preferred this second appeal.
4. The Commission has perused through the material placed on record and has heard both the parties at considerable length.
5. At the outset, the Commission would like to mention that as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the word “Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence. Clearly, as per the said provision, tribunals and commissions such the NCDRC are covered within the ambit of the term “Court”. Now, the core issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the information related to court proceedings, as sought by the Appellant, can be processed under the RTI Act.
6. A similar issue of law, though framed slightly differently, arose before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 3530 / 2011 titled as ‘Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. RS Mishra & others’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its Order dated 23/05/2011 passed in the said petition had held as follows:
“3. An important question that arises in the present writ petition is whether an application seeking information relating to court proceedings can be processed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 notwithstanding that there exist rules of procedure of the court concerning the disclosure of such information to the applicant.
4. Issue notice to Respondent No. 1, returnable on 24th August 2011. Dasti in addition. Respondents 2 and 3 are formal parties and no notice need to be issued to them.
5. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of the impugned order of the Central Information Commission (“CIC”). The CIC will also not proceed with petitions involving a similar question till a decision is rendered in the present writ petition.”
7. The above said order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court debars this Commission to proceed with cases involving any question of law similar to the one been framed by the Hon’ble Court, i.e. whether an application seeking information relating to court proceedings can be processed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 notwithstanding that there exist rules of procedure of the court concerning the disclosure of such information to the applicant (Emphasis Added). Therefore, the Commission is directed expressly not to proceed with such cases only where there are two channels of obtaining information related to court proceedings for an information seeker, i.e. one, through the procedure formulated by the court itself and the other, through the RTI Act.
8. It will not be wrong to say that if there is a situation where there are no procedures or rules established by any court for dissemination of information relating to its proceedings, then the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court will not be attracted. Precisely, that is the case in the present appeal.
9. In the present case, the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 have been made by the NCDRC under Section 30A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the relevant regulations pertaining to supply of court records are reproduced below:
“21. Certified copy.-
(l) A copy of the order is to be given to the parties free of cost as required under the Act and the rules made there under. (2) In case a party requires an extra copy, it shall be issued to him duly certified by the Registry on a payment of Rs. 20/- irrespective of number of pages. (3) A certified copy of an order shall clearly specify the date when free copy was issued, date of application, date when the copy was made ready and the date when it was so delivered to him. (4) A fee of Rs.20/- shall be paid for obtaining another certified copy. (5) Any party desiring to get a certified copy of any document on the file of the Consumer Forum may get the same on payment of certification fee of twenty rupees per copy. Provided that if any such document of which certified copy is sought, is over and above 5 pages, an extra amount of one rupee per page shall be charged over and above the fee of twenty rupees. (6) Certified copy of any miscellaneous order passed by the Consumer Forum shall be supplied on payment of Rs.5 per copy.
22. Inspection of records.-Parties or their agents can inspect the records of any matter by filing an application on payment of ten rupees as fee.”
10. Perusal of the abovementioned regulations shows that there is nothing in the existing rules or regulations which lays any specific procedure or express mechanism for disclosure of information related to court proceedings of NCDRC to third-parties, i.e. to those persons who are not directly interested parties contesting the lis before the NCDRC. The regulations simply concern the disclosure of information related to court proceedings to “parties” but do not prohibit the disclosure of such information to third parties in an express manner.
11. It is in fact the submission on behalf of the NCDRC that as per law, “anything which is not permitted is forbidden”. Therefore, according to NCDRC, it is understood as implied that as per the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, any third party is prohibited from claiming information related to court proceedings of NCDRC. Reliance has been placed on Section 8 (1) (b) of the RTI Act which exempts the disclosure of such information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any Court of law or tribunal or disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.
12. There is an inherent contradiction in the arguments advanced on behalf of the NCDRC. While on one hand, it is stated that absence of any provision in the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 for providing information related to court proceedings to any third party automatically implies prohibition from claiming such information; on the other hand, it is urged that as per Section 8 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, only that information is exempted from disclosure which is “expressly” forbidden to be published by any court.
13. There is nothing in the Consumer protection Regulations, 2005 which “expressly” prohibits or debars the disclosure of information related to court proceedings. It is in fact silent on the said issue. Such silence can be interpreted in two ways.
14. First, if such silence is interpreted in a harmonious manner with the RTI Act and it is assumed that the NCDRC may exercise discretion under the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 to provide information related to its proceedings to any third-party, then it will mean that the third-party has two channels of obtaining such information. One, through the Regulations framed by the NCDRC and the other, through the RTI Act. In such case, this Commission will be hit by the interim order dated 23/05/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Curt (supra), and by virtue of which, this Commission will not be in a position to proceed with the present appeal.
15. Second, if such silence is interpreted in the manner as suggested in the written submissions made on behalf of the NCDRC so as to mean that Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 prohibit the disclosure of information related to its proceedings to third-parties, then that shall leave only one channel to the RTI Applicant for seeking such information, i.e. through the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission will be entitled to proceed with the case since the issue framed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra) will not arise at all and therefore, the order dated 23/05/2011 will not operate on this Commission.
16. In the present appeal, the NCDRC has preferred to take the second approach through its written submissions. By prohibiting or debarring the disclosure of information related to its proceedings to third-parties altogether, the NCDRC has virtually created an inconsistency with the object of the RTI Act. The purpose of the RTI Act is that disclosure of information shall be the norm while exemption shall be the exception. Therefore, in case of such inconsistency between the consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 and the RTI Act, it is the latter which will prevail due to its overriding effect as per Section 22 of the RTI Act. Section 22 of the RTI Act reads as follows:
“22. Act to have overriding effect - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
17. Therefore, in the absence of any express bar on disclosure of information related to its proceedings to third-parties by the NCDRC, the matter has to be looked from the aspect of the RTI Act.
18. The Appellant is third-party seeking information relating to court proceedings which involved other individuals or persons who has personal interest in the said case. Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act exempts the disclosure of such 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, the same cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
19. The Appellant, as a third-party to the case decided by the NCDRC, has failed to show how the information in the nature of entire case file of such decided case will yield larger public interest. The Appellant has also failed to show how the disclosure of such case records will have any relationship to any public activity or interest. In fact, it is the view of this Commission that disclosure of such case records to the Appellant will cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of those parties who were directly involved as contesting parties in the said decided case before the NCDRC.
20. Therefore, the information sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and thus, cannot be provided to her.
21. Before parting, the Commission would like to clarify that the Full-Bench decision of this Commission in Rakesh Kumar Gupta’s case (supra) dealt with the following three issues:
“22. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
I. Whether this Commission, under the Right to Information Act, can order the ITAT to disclose information which that Tribunal has decided not to disclose under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time and rules made there under?
II. Whether the RTI Act applies to a judicial proceeding and, if so, does it override the existing law concerning dissemination of information in respect of a judicial proceeding?
III. Whether the information, which the respondents say are prohibited under the Income Tax Act, can be given under the Right to Information Act?”
22. The answers to the above stated three issues in the Rakesh Kumar Gupta’s case (supra) do not apply to the present case for precisely two reasons. First, while in that case, ITAT had decided expressly and categorically not to disclose certain information related to its proceedings by virtue of the IT Act, 1961; in the present case, there is nothing in the consumer protection Regulations, 2005 which “expressly” debars the disclosure of information related to proceedings before NCDRC to third-parties. Second, that by virtue of the order dated 23/05/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra), the question whether RTI Act applies to judicial proceedings notwithstanding that there are rules of court for disclosure of information related to such judicial proceedings is presently subjudice and there is express direction of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to this Commission to not decide such matter till the Hon’ble Court does so. Therefore, the decision in the Rakesh Kumar Gupta’s case (supra) does not hold an authoritative stand till the matter is disposed by the Hon’ble Delhi Court.
23. Therefore, in light of the foregoing observations, the appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner