Appellant’s application seeking free legal aid was declined by the Scrutiny & Evaluation Committee - CIC: Delving into the reason behind and/or correctness of denial of legal aid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee case is irrelevant

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

“(a) Concerned department

(b) Particulars of information required

(i) Details of information required- Provide certified copy of action taken report and status of letter dated 24.05.2022 (Copy Enclosed).

(ii) Period for which information asked for

(iii) Other details”

The CPIO, DHCLSA vide letter dated 09.02.2023 replied as under:-

“With reference to your RTI application, forwarded by High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, received in this office Vide Dy, No. 412 dated 06.02.2023 The required information are given below: Copy of application form for seeking free legal and, the copy of order which was already declined by the Scrutiny & Evaluation Committee on 06.03.2020 and further all the relevant applications which are disposed off on 14.07.2022.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 27.03.2023 held as under:-

“Thus, in view of the above-mentioned discussion and the facts, I do not find any infirmity in the reply of APIO concerned. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 27.09.2024 has been received from the Appellant stating all deficiencies had been removed from the appeal. The said submission is duly taken on record.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Heard through audio conference

Respondent: Shri Vikas Saddi – DR, RTI with Shri Pritish Sabharwal represented the Delhi High Court and Ms. Anjana Khurana – APIO and Shri Sunil Choudhary – AOI were present from the DHCLSC for the hearing.

The Appellant contended that he was aggrieved by denial of legal aid and had sought information with respect to the same. He was not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent and requested that the Respondent may be directed to consider his plea seeking legal aid to pursue the litigation filed by him.

The Respondent reiterated the PIO’s reply and stated that the Appellant’s application seeking free legal aid had been already declined by the Scrutiny & Evaluation Committee on 06.03.2020 and he had been duly informed accordingly.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions of both parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that appropriate reply has been duly sent by the PIO, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant had been duly informed about the conclusion/fate of his application seeking legal aid. The scope of the RTI At does not extend beyond providing information as available in official records. Therefore, delving into the question of reason behind and/or correctness of denial of legal aid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in this case is irrelevant as it falls outside the purview of the RTI Act. Since information based on available records has already been sent by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Gajender Nath v. High Court Of Delhi Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, Second Appeal No. CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/134118/HCDEL; Date of Decision : 04.11.2024