Certified copy of a letter & notesheet of Dept of Official Language regarding use of Hindi language in Supreme Court was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - Respondent cited section 8(1)(a) during hearing - CIC: explain how it is applicable; next hearing for May 19
11 May, 2014INTERIM ORDER
The present appeal, filed by Shri Maniram Sharma against Supreme Court of India, was taken up for hearing on 24.04.2014 when the Respondents were present through Ms. Asha Ahuja, AR and Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate. The Appellant was heard over the phone on his request.
2. The Appellant through an RTI application dated 19.02.2013 sought information on 10 points, including certified copy of letter dated 11.09.2012 of Department of Official Language regarding use of Hindi language in Supreme Court; certified copy of note sheet in respect of said letter; date of preparing note sheet on said letter and so on.
3. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.04.2013 furnished point wise reply to the Appellant. As for point Nos. 1 & 3, she asked the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 4/ for supply of complies of letters dated 11.9.2012 and 25.9.2012. As for point Nos. 2, 4 & 5, CPIO stated that “the information is sought by you cannot be provided as the subject matter is pending for consideration, therefore, confidentiality of the matter referred to cannot be divulged as it would make the system unworkable in practice and hence exempted under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” As for point Nos. 6 & 7, she stated that reply has already been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 9.03.2013 and 20.02.2013 respectively. As for point Nos. 8 & 10, she stated “Does not arise, in the light of information furnished above.”
4. Aggrieved by the CPIOs reply, the Appellant filed an appeal (copy not enclosed) before the Appellate Authority which the Appellate Authority decided vide order dated 01.05.2013 upholding the CPIO’s reply. [This order of the Appellate Authority however dealt with the RTI application dated 01.02.2013 of the Appellant, while the present matter relates to RTI application dated 19.02.2013.]
5. The Appellant then filed the present appeal before the Commission challenging the Respondents’ decision.
6. During the hearing, the counsel for the Respondents, Shri Rohit Sharma states that they have only denied the information in respect of point Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 & 10 of the RTI application to the Appellant. He states that the information sought in said points attracts exemption under section 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; 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; of the RTI Act. He, in support, cites the Commission’s decision in M Pari v. Supreme Court of India; No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000074; dated 09.07.2013.
7. Since the decision of the Respondents does not deal with the exemption now being claimed by them, the Commission hereby directs the Respondents to file a written submission before the Commission explaining how exemption under section 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; 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; is attracted with regard to the information in question. Time within 10 days of receipt of this order. They should also send an advance copy of their written submission to the Appellant for filing a rejoinder.
8. The matter shall now be heard on May 19th, 2014 at 1445 hrs. Parties are directed to appear before the Commission on the scheduled date.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Maniram Sharma v. Supreme Court of India in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/900874SS