Reasons for designating Advocates as Senior Advocates was denied – CIC: provide a copy of Delhi High Court Rules, public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing inferences or making assumptions
Vide RTI dt 1.3.13, appellant had sought information on 5 points relating to designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates.
2. PIO vide letter dt 21.3.13, provided a point wise response.
3. An appeal was filed.
4. AA vide order dt 18.5.13, examined each of the points raised and disposed of the appeal.
5. Written submissions are made by the appellant and taken on record. Submissions made by the public authority were heard. Appellant in query no.1, has referred to selection of 19 advocates as Senior Advocates during the period 2009-10. PIO in his response has referred to the rules framed by the Delhi High Court in this respect. The Commission asked PIO to provide a copy of the rule which were prevalent during 2009-10. Copy of the rule amended in 2012 is submitted to the Commission and taken on record.
6. The Commission directs PIO to provide to the appellant, copy of Delhi High Court Rules which were prevalent during 2009-10 regarding designation of advocates as senior advocates within 3 weeks of receipt of this order. It is noticed that the appellant has raised queries seeking reasons which do not fall under the ambit of RTI Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay decided on 9.8.2011. Para 35 of the decision is extracted below : “35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice'. In view of the above, the Commission uphold the decision of the CPIO/AA. The appeal is disposed of.
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Rajni Singh v. Delhi High Court in File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000951/RM