The Delhi High Court today set aside the order of its single judge bench which had directed the Supreme Court registry to provide information to an RTI activist regarding cases in which judgments were pending after being reserved.
A division bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath said the single judge verdict upholding the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), directing the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the apex court to provide the information sought, cannot be sustained.
The court's order came on an appeal filed by Supreme Court Registry against a single judge's December 4, 2014 order by which it had been directed to provide information to RTI activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra.
"We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the single judge. Hence, the order under appeal to the extent of upholding the direction of CIC in order dated August 3, 2011 not being in conformity with the provisions of the Act cannot be sustained.
"Accordingly, the order under appeal to the extent of the impugned direction as well as the order of CIC is hereby set aside and the appeal shall stand allowed," the division bench said.
Batra in his RTI application had sought data of pending cases in which arguments have been heard between 2007-2009 and judgements reserved.
Citing an earlier judgement, the division bench said, "It is clear that an applicant under the RTI Act has access to only such information that is available and existing with the public authority, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 (of the Act)."
"The provisions of the Act, no doubt, empower the CIC or SIC to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act including by providing access to information if so requested in a particular form," it said.
The bench said it appeared that the provisions of the Act
required only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act.
"'Right to information' under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by applicant," the court said while allowing the appeal of the SC registry.
The appeal, filed through senior advocate A S Chandhiok, contended having found that the information is not maintained by CPIO in the manner sought for, "the single judge was not justified in upholding the direction of CIC for compiling such information for disclosure to public in future."
The single judge bench had on December 4, 2014 upheld the CIC order while observing that "the period for which a case remains pending after arguments, is relevant for any citizen who desires to know about the pendency of cases before the apex court."
The CPIO of the apex court had earlier rejected Batra's plea by an order dated January 12, 2010 saying the data is not maintained by the registry in the manner as sought for by him.
His appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was also dismissed, against which he had moved CIC which had directed CPIO to provide the information.
