Appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking redressal of her grievance on not having received satisfactory reply & reinstatement of her service at Madras High Court - CIC: A comprehensive reply was provided despite no specific information being sought
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2018 seeking information regarding letter petition dated 10.04.2018 and 14.05.2018 on an unsatisfactory reply received from Chief Justice of Madras High Court, to her application dated 02.04.2018.
The CPIO/Addl. Registrar vide letter dated 06.06.2018 informed the Appellant that application fee of Rs. 10/- either in cash or by way of Indian Postal Order or by Money Order or Demand Draft drawn in favour of Registrar/Accounts Officer, Supreme Court of India is required to seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Your application is defective.
Notwithstanding the above position, the Respondent informed the Appellant as under:
It is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to interpret the law, judgments/ orders of this Hon’ble Court or of any other Court, to give explanation, opine, comment or advise on matters. Your request is not covered under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and cannot be acceded to that extent.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 05.07.2018 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard at length through video conference wherein it transpired from the deliberations between parties, during the course of hearing that the application dated 18.05.2018 filed by the Appellant is in the nature of a First Appeal. The Appellant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking redressal of her grievance on not having received satisfactory reply and reinstatement of her service at the Madras High Court. Thus, the Appellant had not sought any information from the Respondent in this case, through the purported RTI application.
Perusal of records of the case reveal that the Respondent has already provided a comprehensive reply, despite the fact that no specific information has been sought by the Appellant.
In the given circumstances, the Commission finds no infirmity with the response of the Respondent and thus no further direction under the RTI Act is deemed necessary in this case. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: K Revathy v. Supreme Court of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2018/627281, Date of Decision: 19.03.2021