W.P.(C)--3530/2011. Case: THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Vs. R S MISRA. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--3530/2011 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | November 21, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3530/2011
THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr. Nitin Saluja, Mr. Soumy Roop Sanyal, Ms. Advitiya Awasthi and Mr. Sidharth Agarwal, Advocates
versus
R S MISRA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae.
Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate for
respondent.
Reserved On : 27th September, 2017 % Date of Decision: 21st November, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J :
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the decision Central Information Commission (for short "CIC"), dated 11th May,
passed in Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000237. The CIC vide the order allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the Central Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (for short "CPIO") to the queries 1 to 7 raised by the said respondent in his application dated April, 2010. The CIC also directed the CPIO to provide
pertaining to a judicial matter in which the respondent himself was a
i.e. in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8219-8220 of 2010 and represented by a lawyer. The relevant portion of the impugned reproduced hereinbelow:-
"In view of the foregoing arguments, this Commission respectfully disagrees with the decision of the then Chief Information Commissioner that the PIO, Supreme Court may choose to deny the information sought under the RTI Act and ask an applicant to apply for information under Order XII of the SC Rules.
This Bench further rules that all citizens have the right to access information under Section 3 of the RTI Act and PIOs shall provide the information sought to the citizens, subject always to the provisions of the RTI Act only.
Where there are methods of giving information by any public authority which were in existence before the advent of the RTI Act, the citizen may insist on invoking the provisions of the RTI Act to obtain the information. It is the citizen's prerogative to decide under which mechanism, i.e. under the method prescribed by the public authority or the RTI Act, she would like to obtain the information.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as available on record in relation to queries 1 to 7 to the Appellant before June 5, 2011."
2. The respondent's application under Right to Information Act, (for short "RTI Act") dated 20th April, 2010 is reproduced hereinbelow:-"Dated 20.04.2010
To,
The CPIO,
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi,
Sub: Information required under RTI Act, 2005 with due permission to get published my clear victimization in leading daily newspapers and role of courts.
Sir,
Details of Information required are as under:-
1. Inform me the action taken and status report of my application dated 14.09.2009 to Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and his companion all 26 Judges for struck down Article 81(b) of Education Code of Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan Unconstitutional, unguided and ultra virus and void.
2. Inform me the action taken and status report of my letters dated 25.2.2010 to each Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court for struck down of Article 81(b) of EC of KVS and its misuse in an arbitrary manner with ulterior motives being unconstitutional null and void without regular inquiry.
3. Inform me the action taken and status report of my application dated 22.3.2010 for deprivation of natural justice of W.P.(C) and SLP dismissed by all the courts without providing complete legible, readable typed copies of complete Inquiry Report and 69 (sixty nine) pages of the statement of the witnesses vide decision given by CIC and upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dispensing regularing inquiry rightly.
4. Inform me the action taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Ganguli on my application dated 05.03.2010 in the matter of RS Misra Vs. UOI & Ors. for natural justice and malafidy of the case SLP (C) Nos. 8219-8220 of 2010 unheard.
5. Inform me the action taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Ganguli against clear cut victimization by authorities of KVS without any evidence specific allegations, time, date and period on my application dated 15.3.2010 and without providing opportunities of natural justice. SLP (C) Nos. 8219-8220 of 2010 unheard.
6. Inform me the action taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Ganguli against my application dated
30.3.2010 for malafide intention, contention and vindictive attitude of respondents regularly.
7. Inform me the action taken by Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on application of my wife Mrs. Rampati Misra against clear victimization of her husband Shri R.S. Misra before 7 days of retirement without regular inquiry and report of summary inquiry to be provided from the authorities of KVS on petition dated 26.3.2010 in the matter of RS Misra Vs. UOI & Ors.
8. Requisite fee Rs. 10.00 vide IPO No. 86E 954536 dated
10.09.2010 enclosed.
9. Inform me the law under which Tribunal, High Court and also Apex Court dutifully dismiss the case without examining facts, grounds and circumstances of alleged allegations from Manipuri girls through rumoured bad conduct fraudulent Manipuri lady Principal Mrs. Radharani Devi openly supported by KVS, CBI and CVC without enquiry.
R.S. MISRA
APPLICANT
S-93, NEW PALAM VIHAR
PHASE-I
GURGAON-122017"
(emphasis supplied)
3. Though the respondent informed this Court that he was possession of any of the letters referred to, by him, in his RTI yet the petitioner had placed on record the letters dated 22nd March, and 26th March, 2010. Both the said letters read like a writ petition same have not been reproduced to avoid prolixity.
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS
4. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for petitioner that the CIC vide the impugned order, in Second Appeal, considering whether the queries raised by the respondent in his application were maintainable under the RTI Act, gave a general that all such queries should be answered by the CPIO on or before 5th
2011.
5. He submitted that the impugned order is contrary to prior decisions of CIC Benches of similar strength and even if the CIC was inclined disagree with the prior decisions on the same issue, the case should been referred to a larger bench. He pointed out that the CIC in a number previous decisions had repeatedly held that access to documents filed on the judicial side can only be obtained through the mechanism of Supreme Court Rules (for short "SCR") and that the provisions of the RTI Act override the SCR. He, however, stated that the CIC in the judgment took a view contrary to the settled position of law and held that accordance with Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provision of RTI Act override the Supreme Court Rules.”
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no inconsistency between the SCR, 1966 and the RTI Act, 2005. He
that the SCR have been framed under Article 145 of the Constitution India and they provide for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court and have the effect of law. He pointed out that the SCR provide mechanism for inspection and search of pleadings on payment of prescribed fees under Order XII. According to him, as it was open for the respondent in the present case to obtain certified copies of the order sheets, the CIC not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish copies of the same cost.
7. Mr. Luthra contended that as there is no inconsistency between RTI Act and the SCR, the RTI Act will not have an overriding effect the SCR. Furthermore, according to him, since Order XII of the SCR provisions of the RTI Act serve the same purpose, it would be a waste of public funds to permit information to be provided both under RTI Act as well as the SCR, as erroneously held in the impugned judgment. In support of his submission, he relied upon judgment of this Court Registrar of Companies and Others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg Another, (2017) 172 Comp Cas 412 (Delhi) .
8. He also pointed out that the Karnataka High Court in State Information Officer and Deputy Registrar, High Court of Karnataka
N. Anbarasan (ILR 2003 KAR 3890) has held that as some of information sought in the said case was available under Karnataka Court Act and Rules made thereunder, it was not open for the respondent to ask for copies of the same under the RTI Act. He stated that the information in respect to Item Nos. 6 to 17 in the said case related to Writ No.17935/2006 and as the respondent was a party to the said proceeding
was open to the respondent to file an application, in accordance with Rules, for certified copies of the order sheets or the relevant documents.
9. According to Mr. Luthra, the non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act did not mean an implied repeal over all statutes. In support submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 81 wherein it has held that “the general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two conditions is satisfied:
i. The two are inconsistent with each other
ii. There is some express reference in the later to the enactment.
If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail."
10. Mr. Luthra lastly submitted that any interference with the work Judge in the discharge of his duties amounts to Contempt of Court. contended that by way of the RTI application, the respondent sought know in substance as to why his SLP had been dismissed, which permissible under any law. He pointed out that the Allahabad High Court in Baij Nath Prasad Vs. Madan Mohan Das, AIR 1952 All 108 has held that a party making a...
To continue reading
Request your trial