IN TBE BIuB C00RT 0F }0BICAT0RE AT NABRAS

BATEB: 17.9.2u14
C0RAN:
TBE B0N00RABLE NR.}0STICE N.PA0L vASANTBAK0NAR
ANB
TBE B0N00RABLE NR.}0STICE K.RAvICBANBRABAAB0

W.P.No.26781 of 2u1S
& N.P.No.1 of 2u1S

The Public Infoimation 0fficei,
The Registiai (Auministiation),
Bigh Couit, Nauias. .. Petitionei
vs.
1. The Cential Infoimation Commission,
Rep. by its Registiai,
Room No.Su6, 2nu Flooi, "B" Wing,
August Kianti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Belhi-11u u66.

2. Ni.B.Bhaiathi .. Responuents

Wiit Petition fileu unuei Aiticle 226 of the Constitution of Inuia, piaying
foi issuance of a Wiit of Ceitioiaii to call foi the iecoius in Case
No.CICSNC2u129uuS78 to S84, CICSNC2u12uuu6uu, 6u1, 97u to 97S,
99S to 1uuu, 112u to 11S1, 11SS, 11S4, 114S to 11S2, 1162, 116S,
CICSNA2u129uuS4u, CICSNA2u12uuu9SS, 1SS8, 1776 to 1778 (SS
cases) etc., oiuei uateu 2S.1.2u1S passeu by the fiist iesponuent anu quash the
same.
Foi petitionei : Ni.v.vijay Shankai
Foi iesponuents: R-1 - Cential Infoimation Commission
Ni.B.Bhaiathi - R-2 (paity-in-peison)

(The Wiit Petition was ieseiveu foi oiueis on 1.9.2u14)

0RBER
K.RAvICBANBRABAAB0,}

The Public Infoimation 0fficei (Registiai (Auministiation) ), Bigh Couit,
Nauias is the wiit petitionei. This Wiit Petition is fileu challenging the oiuei
passeu by the Cential Infoimation Commission, New Belhi (fiist iesponuent
heiein), uateu 2S.1.2u1S, wheieby the fiist iesponuent has uiiecteu the
petitionei to fuinish the infoimation as sought foi by the seconu iesponuent
heiein, insofai as six appeals aie conceineu. In iespect of othei 47 complaints
aie conceineu, the fiist iesponuent-Commission uiiecteu the petitionei to senu
statement of paiticulais iegaiuing those complaints.
2. The case of the petitionei is as follows:
The seconu iesponuent, a native of Puuucheiiy, has maue seveial
applicationsqueiies unuei the piovisions of the Right to Infoimation Act, 2uuS
(heieinaftei iefeiieu to as 'the RTI Act') to the Nauias Bigh Couit, seeking
infoimation on vaiious aspects. 0ut of seveial such applicationsqueiies maue
by the seconu iesponuent, the fiist iesponuent has uiiecteu the petitionei to
fuinish the infoimation as sought foi by the seconu iesponuent in iespect of the
following six applicationsqueiies:
(i) Betails of action taken on his complaint, uateu 1.6.2u11 against the
Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie, Chennai anu the uetails of enquiiy
conuucteu theieon;
(ii) Betails of ieciuitment iules foi the post of Registiai ueneial of Bigh
Couit, uetails of constitution of Selection Committee, iecommenuation maue by
inuiviuual }uuges anu othei infoimation iegaiuing the selection of vaiious
inuiviuuals as Registiai ueneials;
(iii) Betails of action taken on eailiei application, uateu S1.1u.2u11
iegaiuing the appointment anu selection of Registiai ueneial;
(iv) Copies of seveial petitionsappeals fileu by the seconu iesponuent
anu also the file notings maue theiein;
(v) Copy of eailiei complaint, uateu 1u.12.2u11 fileu by the seconu
iesponuent against the Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie, Chennai anu the
action taken theieon;
(vi) Infoimation as to what action taken iegaiuing the complaint fileu by
the seconu iesponuent, uateu 2u.9.2u11 against inclusion of one Ns.ueetha
Ramaseshan as Auvocate in Cil.0.P.No.188u4 of 2u1u anu the file notings
theieon.
S. 0ut of those six queiies maue by the seconu iesponuent, queiies (i) anu
(v) ielate to the complaint maue by the seconu iesponuent against the Chief
Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie, Chennai. Queiies (ii) anu (iii) ielate to the
selection anu appointment of Registiai ueneial of Bigh Couit.
4. Insofai as queiy (i) is conceineu, it is the case of the petitionei that on
ieceipt of the application, uateu S.12.2u11 fiom the seconu iesponuent, the
petitionei, thiough communication, uateu 2u.1.2u12, askeu the seconu
iesponuent to come foi inspection of necessaiy files. It is the fuithei case of the
petitionei that though the inspection was fixeu on Su.1.2u12, the seconu
iesponuent sought time anu accoiuingly, on 1.2.2u12, the seconu iesponuent
was peimitteu to peiuse the files iegaiuing the action taken. Bowevei, in the
meantime, the seconu iesponuent fileu an appeal to the Registiai ueneial of
Bigh Couit complaining non-fuinishing of infoimation anu the saiu appeal was
uismisseu by the Registiai ueneial on 6.11.2u12 by ielying on the uecision of the
Supieme Couit in S.L.P.No.277S4 of 2u12.
S. Insofai as queiy (v) is conceineu, it is the case of the petitionei that the
seconu iesponuent was alieauy infoimeu thiough communication, uateu
28.S.2u12 that his complaint, uateu 1u.12.2u11 has been closeu. Bowevei, the
seconu iesponuent fileu appeal to the Registiai ueneial of this Couit, wheiein,
an oiuei came to be passeu on 12.6.2u12, holuing that nothing fuithei was to be
uone in this mattei, as the seconu iesponuent was alieauy infoimeu on
28.S.2u12 itself about the closing of his complaint, uateu 1u.12.2u11.
6. Insofai as queiy (ii) is conceineu, it is the case of the petitionei that the
iequest of the seconu iesponuent was iejecteu by the petitionei on 2S.11.2u11
on the giounu that eailiei petition on similai lines, was iejecteu unuei Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Bowevei, the seconu iesponuent fileu an appeal befoie the
Registiai ueneial anu theieaftei, fileu fuithei appeal befoie the fiist iesponuent
heiein, who in tuin, by oiuei uateu 28.9.2u12, uiiecteu fuinishing of the
iequiieu infoimation. Theieaftei, on 8.11.2u12, the petitionei fuinisheu queiy-
wise infoimation to the seconu iesponuent, stating that theie aie no
ieciuitment iules foi the post of Registiai ueneial anu that theie is no Selection
Committee foi that puipose. Thus, it is the case of the petitionei that insofai as
the queiy iegaiuing the Registiai ueneial is conceineu, the iequiieu infoimation
has been supplieu by the petitionei to the seconu iesponuent.
7. Insofai as queiy (iii) is conceineu, it is the case of the petitionei that all
the iequiieu infoimation as pointeu out in iespect of queiy (ii), hau been
fuinisheu to the seconu iesponuent on 8.11.2u12.
8. Insofai as queiy (iv) is conceineu, it is the case of the petitionei that
the complaint petitionsqueiies maue by the seconu iesponuent must be
available with him, since they aie the complaint petitionsqueiies maue by
himself anu wheievei those uocuments aie available, the infoimation was
fuinisheu to the seconu iesponuent, thiough pioceeuings uateu 2S.4.2u12.
9. Insofai as queiy (vi) is conceineu, it is the case of the petitionei that his
iequest has been put up along with the case bunules in Cil.0.P.No.188u4 of 2u12,
since the mattei is sub-juuice anu penuing befoie the Bigh Couit.
1u. Not being satisfieu with the intimationinfoimation fuinisheu by the
petitionei in iespect of the abovesaiu six cases, the seconu iesponuent
appioacheu the fiist iesponuent-Commission by way of Seconu Appeals. Those
six Seconu Appeals weie taken along with 47 complaints fileu by the seconu
iesponuent himself foi uisposal by the fiist iesponuent.
11. Aftei heaiing both siues, the fiist iesponuent-Commission passeu an
oiuei on 2S.1.2u1S anu uiiecteu the petitionei heiein to piepaie a tabulai
statement listing all the complaints anu iepiesentations ieceiveu fiom the
seconu iesponuent insofai as those 47 complaints ieceiveu by the fiist
iesponuent aie conceineu anu fuithei uiiecteu the petitionei to inuicate with
the paiticulais about the cuiient status of the action taken in those complaints
anu senu the statement to the fiist iesponuent-Commission within 2u woiking
uays fiom the ieceipt of the oiuei. Insofai as six Seconu Appeals aie conceineu,
the fiist iesponuent-Commission uiiecteu the petitionei to pioviue the uesiieu
infoimation sought foi by the seconu iesponuent by way of attesteu photocopies
of the ielevant uocuments incluuing the file notings wheievei available anu any
coiiesponuence maue. The fiist iesponuent-Commission fuithei oiueieu that in
case conceining the appointment of the Registiai ueneial, the petitionei must
pioviue the photocopy of the file notings, if any, fiom the file in which the
pioposal foi appointment of the Registiai ueneial hau been piocesseu anu
finaliseu. Likewise, the fiist iesponuent-Commission oiueieu to pioviue the
photocopy of the ielevant file notings, if any, fiom the file in which the seconu
iesponuent's complaint against the appointment of the Registiai ueneial was
uealt with. In iespect of the appointment of Public Piosecutois since 2uu6, the
fiist iesponuent uiiecteu the petitionei to pioviue the photocopies of the letteis
containing the concuiience oi otheiwise of the Bigh Couit about specific
inuiviuuals pioposeu by the State uoveinment. Aftei making such an oiuei, the
fiist iesponuent has also expiesseu a woiu of caution on the action of the seconu
iesponuent. It is specifically obseiveu by the fiist iesponuent that the uisclosuie
of infoimation must be commensuiate anu in confoimity with the smooth
functioning of the public authoiities anu this paiticulai case shows how a single
inuiviuual can oveiloau a public authoiity anu uiveit its iesouices iathei
uispiopoitionately while seeking infoimation. Senuing numeious complaints
anu iepiesentations anu then following those with the RTI applications, cannot
be the way to ieuiess such giievances, is the othei obseivation maue by the fiist
iesponuent. Accoiuingly, the fiist iesponuent-Commission uisposeu of six
Seconu Appeals anu postponeu the pioceeuings in iespect of othei 47
complaints foi ieceiving the statement fiom the petitionei.
12. This Wiit Petition is fileu by the petitionei challenging the oiuei of the
fiist iesponuent-Commission on the following giounus:
(a) Insofai as the queiy ielating to the appointment of the Registiai
ueneial of the Bigh Couit is conceineu, the petitionei has alieauy infoimeu the
seconu iesponuent that theie weie no special ieciuitment iules foi the post of
Registiai ueneial anu theie was no Selection Committee foi making such
ieciuitment. Likewise, in iespect of the queiy conceining the action taken on the
complaint against the Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie, Chennai, the
seconu iesponuent was infoimeu that no action was taken anu the mattei was
closeu.
(b) The infoimation wheievei available anu peimissible, hau been
pioviueu to the seconu iesponuent. Bowevei, the veiy attituue of the seconu
iesponuent in senuing SS applications to the Bigh Couit seeking infoimation on
vaiious issues, shows that his aim is to ueiail the auministiation by misusing the
RTI Act piovisions anu biing it to embaiiassment anu iiuicule.
(c) The State Infoimation Commission, by oiuei uateu 2.6.2u12 in 0iuei
No.2u8S4A2u12, hau also passeu stiictuies in anothei pioceeuings against the
offensive intimiuatoiy act of the seconu iesponuent heiein. The selection to the
post of Registiai ueneial which is a sensitive post in the auministiative set up of
the Bigh Couit, is not a mattei to be uiscusseu in public uomain, especially
thiough the infoimation sought foi unuei the RTI Act. The post is essentially one
of tiust ieposeu by the Bonouiable Chief }ustice of Bigh Couit on a paiticulai
inuiviuual anu such selection by the Bonouiable Chief }ustice of Bigh Couit is
vesteu unuei Aiticle 229 of the Constitution of Inuia anu the same cannot be
maue the subject of public uiscussion. Any fuithei uisclosuie of infoimation on
that issue is thoioughly unnecessaiy anu unwaiianteu with no element of public
inteiest. Non-fuinishing of such infoimation is piotecteu by Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act.
(u) The seconu iesponuent in one of the queiies has sought foi copies of
his own petitions anu appeals. It is not known as to how the seconu iesponuent-
complainant can seek foi those paiticulais which aie aumitteuly sent by him anu
piesumably available with him.
1S. The seconu iesponuent has fileu countei affiuavit. The ciux of the
aveiments maue theiein is as follows:
(a) Insofai as case (i) is conceineu, he peiuseu the file on S.2.2u12, but
ceitifieu copiescopies of file notings oi oiueis weie not given as iequesteu by
him.
(b) Insofai as case (ii) is conceineu, the infoimation sought foi by the
seconu iesponuent on the selection of Registiai ueneial is veiy impoitant anu
the petitionei gave the misleauing anu paitial infoimation on 8.11.2u12, that too
aftei the issue of oiueis of the fiist iesponuent anu till uate, he has not ieceiveu
the full infoimation on the selection of the Registiai ueneial of this Bigh Couit.
(c) Insofai as case (iii) is conceineu, the infoimation sought foi is in
iespect of the stepwise action taken on his complaint to the Bonouiable Chief
}ustice on S1.1u.2u11 foi a fiee anu faii enquiiy into the appointment of the
piesent Registiai ueneial. The infoimation was uenieu on 4.4.2u12, i.e. aftei Su
uays anu no heaiing was extenueu to the seconu iesponuent.
(u) Insofai as case (iv) is conceineu, the seconu iesponuent sought foi the
ceitifieu copies of his applicationscomplaints, because, he wanteu to know the
commentsoiueis passeu by the competent authoiity to whom he submitteu his
application.
(e) Insofai as case (v) is conceineu, he sought infoimation on the
stepwise action taken on his complaint against the Chief Netiopolitan
Nagistiate, Egmoie, Chennai anu the infoimation was uenieu by stating that his
petition has been oiueieu to be closeu.
(f) Insofai as case (vi) is conceineu, the Assistant Public Infoimation
0fficei uisposeu of the application submitteu on S.12.2u11 by the seconu
iesponuent, who is not competent to uispose of the same.
(g) The Public Infoimation 0fficeiRegistiai ueneial of this Couit uiu not
act in accoiuance with the piovisions of the RTI Act. The Public Infoimation
0fficei of this Couit cannot be exempteu fiom the iules oi piovisions of the RTI
Act. The seconu iesponuent's RTI applications aie submitteu foi obtaining
infoimation on public inteiest such as appointment of the Registiai ueneial,
appioval of the Bigh Couit to the Public Piosecutoi, senioiity list of the Bistiict
}uuges anu infoimation of stepwise action taken on his complaint to the
Registiai ueneial anu the Registiai (vigilance) anu all his iequests foi
infoimation aie genuine. The iejection of the infoimation unuei Section 8(1)(j)
of the RTI Act cannot be uone without giving ieason.
(h) The uiiections issueu by the fiist iesponuent to uisclose the
pioceuuie anu file notes of the selection of the Registiai ueneial is ieasonable.
The Piesiuent of Inuia oi the Chief }ustice oi any public authoiity cannot uo
selection of the canuiuate as they please, whethei it is a sensitive post oi not. All
the posts staiting fiom uioup B to All Inuia Seivice aie filleu by piopei selection
pioceuuieieciuitment iules. If the file notes of the selection of Registiai
ueneial aie not ieleaseu, then it leaus to unwaiianteu suspicion on the selection
of the Registiai ueneial.
(i) The seconu iesponuent is seeking copies of his complaint oi
application to finu out the action taken oi oiuei passeu by the competent
authoiity to whom the complaintlettei was auuiesseu. The copies of the
complaints weie sought because the seconu iesponuent uiu not have any copy.
Theie is a collusion between the Police officials, Public Piosecutoi, State
Infoimation Commission anu Public Infoimation 0fficei of this Couit in stalling
the flowing of uue infoimation to him anu theieby, ueny him justice.
14. Ni.v.vijay Shankai, leaineu counsel appeaiing foi the petitionei
submitteu that what aie all the infoimation that coulu be fuinisheu to the seconu
iesponuent, hau been fuinisheu, as stateu in the affiuavit fileu in suppoit of the
Wiit Petition, except the minutes of the }uuges anu file notings, which cannot be
fuinisheu to the seconu iesponuent. Be fuithei submitteu that on 21.8.2u14, the
seconu iesponuent was infoimeu once again about the action taken on his
complaint against the Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie, Chennai. In all
othei iespects, the leaineu counsel ieiteiateu the contentions iaiseu in the
affiuavit fileu in suppoit of the Wiit Petition anu in suppoit of such submissions,
he ielieu on the uecision of the Supieme Couit iepoiteu in 2u12 (8) NL} 122
(SC) (u.R.Beshpanue vs. Cen. Infoimation Commi.) anu the uecisions of this
Couit iepoiteu in 2u1S (S) NL} 1S4 (Registiai ueneial of Bigh Couit of Nauias
vs. K.Elango), 2u1S (S) NL} S8S (Registiai ueneial, Bigh Couit of Nauias vs.
A.Kanagaiaj), 2u1S (S) NL} S1S (Registiai ueneial, Bigh Couit of Nauias vs.
R.N.Subiamanian) anu 2u1S (S) NL} 694 (Registiai ueneial, Bigh Couit of
Nauias vs.K.0.Rajasekai).
1S. Pei contia, the seconu iesponuent who is appeaiing as paity-in-
peison, ieiteiateu the contentions iaiseu in the countei affiuavit anu submitteu
that the infoimation sought foi by the seconu iesponuent cannot be with-helu by
the petitionei anu the fiist iesponuent-Commission iightly passeu an oiuei
uiiecting the petitionei to fuinish those paiticulais to him.
16. We have consiueieu the submissions maue by the leaineu counsel foi
the petitionei anu the seconu iesponuent as paity-in-peison anu peiuseu the
mateiials available on iecoiu.
17. The piesent Wiit Petition ievolves aiounu the object anu scope of the
RTI Act, 2uuS as well as the iight of the seconu iesponuent to seek ceitain
infoimations fiom the Bigh Couit anu the entitlement of the petitionei to with-
holu ceitain infoimations, out of all the infoimations sought foi by the seconu
iesponuent, on the giounu that they aie not peimissible to be uiscloseu, which
aie uiscusseu in uetail below.
18. Befoie we go into the meiits of the case, let us consiuei the ielevant
piovisions of the RTI Act foi the puipose of ueciuing this case, which ieau as
follows:
The RTI Act uefines "infoimation" unuei Section 2(f) as follows:
"infoimation" means any mateiial in any foim, incluuing iecoius,
uocuments, memos, e-mails, opinions, auvices, piess ieleases, ciiculais, oiueis,
logbooks, contiacts, iepoits, papeis, samples, mouels, uata mateiial helu in any
electionic foim anu infoimation ielating to any piivate bouy which can be
accesseu by a public authoiity unuei any othei law foi the time being in foice."
Likewise, it uefines "iight to infoimation"unuei Section 2(j) as follows:
"iight to infoimation" means the iight to infoimation accessible unuei
this Act which is helu by oi unuei the contiol of any public authoiity anu
incluues the iight to--
(i) inspection of woik, uocuments, iecoius;
(ii) taking notes, extiacts oi ceitifieu copies of uocuments oi iecoius;
(iii) taking ceitifieu samples of mateiial;
(iv) obtaining infoimation in the foim of uiskettes, floppies, tapes, viueo
cassettes oi in any othei electionic moue oi thiough piintouts wheie such
infoimation is stoieu in a computei oi in any othei uevice."

Section S of the RTI Act contemplates that all citizens shall have the iight to
infoimation, subject to the piovisions of the Act. The RTI Act was enacteu to
pioviue foi setting out the piactical iegime of iight to infoimation to citizens to
secuie access to infoimation unuei the contiol of public authoiities, in oiuei to
piomote tianspaiency anu accountability in the woiking of eveiy public
authoiity.
19. The scope anu ambit of the RTI Act came up foi consiueiation befoie
the Bonouiable Supieme Couit on seveial occasions anu in the following
uecisions, the Supieme Couit, aftei consiueiing the same, has obseiveu as
follows:
(a) In the uecision iepoiteu in 2u1u (2) SCC 1 (Khanapuiam uanuaiah vs.
Auministiative 0fficei), the Bonouiable Supieme Couit has obseiveu that the
applicant unuei the RTI Act cannot ask foi any infoimation as to why such
opinions, auvices, ciiculais, oiueis, etc., have been passeu, especially in matteis
peitaining to juuicial uecisions, even though he is entitleu to get copies of the
same.
(b) In 2u11 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE vs. Auitya Banuopauhyay), the Bonouiable
Supieme Couit, while quoting the eailiei uecision iepoiteu in 2uu4 (2) SCC 476
(People's 0nion foi Civil Libeities vs. 0nion of Inuia), helu that the "iight to
infoimation" is a facet of the fieeuom of "speech anu expiession", as containeu in
Aiticle 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Inuia anu such a iight is subject to any
ieasonable iestiiction in the inteiest of the secuiity of the State anu subject to
exemptions anu exceptions. It is fuithei obseiveu theiein in paiagiaph 2S that
ceitain safeguaius have been built into the RTI Act, so that ievelation of
infoimation will not conflict with othei public inteiests, which incluue efficient
opeiation of the uoveinments, optimum use of limiteu fiscal iesouices anu
pieseivation of confiuential anu sensitive infoimation.
(c) In the uecision iepoiteu in 2u12 (1S) SCC 61 (Bihai Public Seivice
Commission vs. Saiyeu Bussain Abbas Rizwi), the Bonouiable Supieme Couit
has consiueieu the puipose, scheme anu scope of the RTI Act, 2uuS anu founu
that the "iight to infoimation" is not uncontiolleu iight, but subject to uual
check, namely inbuilt iestiictions within the statute itself anu seconuly,
Constitutional limitations enshiineu unuei Aiticle 21 of the Constitution of Inuia.
The ielevant obseivations maue in paiagiaphs 12, 14 anu 1S of the saiu uecision,
ieau as follows:
"12. Right to infoimation is a basic anu celebiateu funuamentalbasic
iight but is not uncontiolleu. It has its limitations. The iight is subject to a uual
check. Fiistly, this iight is subject to the iestiictions inbuilt within the Act, anu
seconuly, the constitutional limitations emeiging fiom Aiticle 21 of the
Constitution. Thus, wheievei in iesponse to an application foi uisclosuie of
infoimation, the public authoiity takes sheltei unuei the piovisions ielating to
exemption, non-applicability oi infiingement of Aiticle 21 of the Constitution,
the State Infoimation Commission has to apply its minu anu foim an opinion
objectively if the exemption claimeu foi was sustainable on facts of the case."
"14. Section 2(f) again is exhaustive in natuie. The legislatuie has given
meaning to the expiession "infoimation" anu has stateu that it shall mean any
mateiial in any foim incluuing papeis, samples, uata mateiial helu in electionic
foim, etc. Right to infoimation unuei Section 2(j) means the "iight to
infoimation" accessible unuei this Act which is helu by oi unuei the contiol of
any public authoiity anu incluues the iight to inspection of woik, uocuments,
iecoius, taking notes, extiacts, taking ceitifieu sample of mateiials, obtaining
infoimation in the foim of uiskettes, floppies anu viueo cassettes, etc. The iight
sought to be exeiciseu anu infoimation askeu foi shoulu fall within the scope of
"infoimation" anu "iight to infoimation" as uefineu unuei the Act."

"1S. Thus, what has to be seen is whethei the infoimation sought foi in
exeicise of the iight to infoimation is one that is peimissible within the
fiamewoik of law as piesciibeu unuei the Act. If the infoimation calleu foi falls
in any of the categoiies specifieu unuei Section 8 oi ielates to the oiganisations
to which the Act itself uoes not apply in teims of Section 24 of the Act, the public
authoiity can take such stanu befoie the Commission anu uecline to fuinish such
infoimation. Anothei aspect of exeicise of this iight is that wheie the
infoimation askeu foi ielates to thiiu-paity infoimation, the Commission is
iequiieu to follow the pioceuuie piesciibeu unuei Section 11 of the Act."


(u) In the uecision iepoiteu in 2u12 (8) NL} 122 (SC) (u.R.Beshpanue vs.
Cen. Infoimation Commi.), the Supieme Couit obseiveu in paiagiaphs 1S anu 1S
as unuei:
"1S. ... The peifoimance of an employeeofficei in an oiganization is
piimaiily a mattei between the employee anu the employei anu noimally
those aspects aie goveineu by the seivice iules which fall unuei the
expiession peisonal infoimation , the uisclosuie of which has no ielationship
to any public activity oi public inteiest. 0n the othei hanu, the uisclosuie of
which woulu cause unwaiianteu invasion of piivacy of that inuiviuual. 0f
couise, in a given case, if the Cential Public Infoimation 0fficei oi the State
Public Infoimation 0fficei of the Appellate Authoiity is satisfieu that the laigei
public inteiest justifies the uisclosuie of such infoimation, appiopiiate oiueis
coulu be passeu but the petitionei cannot claim those uetails as a mattei of
iight.
1S. The petitionei in the instant case has not maue a bona fiue public
inteiest in seeking infoimation, the uisclosuie of such infoimation woulu cause
unwaiianteu invasion of piivacy of the inuiviuual unuei Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act"
2u. 0nuei the RTI Act, a citizen of this countiy has a iight to infoimation
as uefineu unuei Sections 2(f) anu 2(j), of couise, subject to ceitain iestiictions
as pioviueu unuei the Act. What infoimation one can seek anu what iight one
can have, aie specifically contemplateu unuei Sections 2(f) anu 2(j) iespectively.
Bowevei, the woiu "iight" is not uefineu unuei the RTI Act. In the absence of any
uefinition of "iight", it has to be unueistoou to mean that such "iight" must have
a legal basis. Theiefoie, the "iight" must be coupleu with an object oi puipose to
be achieveu. Such object anu puipose must, unuoubteuly, have a legal basis oi be
legally sustainable anu enfoiceable. It cannot be constiueu that a iequest oi
queiy maue 'simplicitei', will fall unuei the uefinition of "iight to infoimation".
The "iight" must emanate fiom legally sustainable claim. Theie is a uiffeience
between the "iight to infoimation" anu the "iight to seek infoimation". It is like
the "iight to piopeity" anu the "iight to claim piopeity". In the foimei, such iight
is alieauy acciueu anu vesteu with the seekei, wheieas, in the lattei, it is yet to
acciue oi get vesteu. Likewise, a peison who seeks infoimation unuei the RTI
Act, must show that the infoimation sought foi is eithei foi his peisonal inteiest
oi foi a public inteiest. 0nuei both ciicumstances, the infoimation seekei must
uisclose atleast with baie minimum uetails as to what is the peisonal inteiest oi
the public inteiest, foi which such infoimation is sought foi. If such uetails aie
eithei absent oi not uiscloseu, such queiy cannot be constiueu as the one
satisfying the iequiiement of the RTI Act. The iestiictions imposeu unuei the
RTI Act, though aie in iespect of pioviuing ceitain infoimations, ceitainly, theie
aie ceitain inbuilt iestiictions imposeu on the applicant as well.
21. As obseiveu by the Bonouiable Supieme Couit in the uecision
iepoiteu in 2u11 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE vs. Auitya Banuopauhyay), such iight to
seek infoimation cannot be constiueu oi claimeu as an unfetteieu iight to seek
any infoimation anu on the othei hanu, such iight being a facet of the fieeuom of
"speech anu expiession", as containeu in Aiticle 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
Inuia, is always subject to ieasonable iestiiction. No uoubt, Section S of the RTI
Act contemplates that all citizens shall have the "iight to infoimation". At the
same time, when such "iight to infoimation" is not an unfetteieu iight anu on the
othei hanu, is subject to ieasonable iestiiction, it has to be helu that such iight
cannot be sought to be enfoiceu as a mattei of ioutine oi as a mattei of couise,
without uisclosing as to whethei such iight is being exeiciseu to get an
infoimation to achieve a legally enfoiceable oi achievable object. In othei woius,
piima-facie, an applicant must uisclose the object foi which such an infoimation
is sought foi anu also satisfy that such object has a legal backing. If infoimations
aie to be fuinisheu to a peison, who uoes not have any ieason oi object behinu
seeking such infoimations, in oui consiueieu view, the intention of the
Legislatuie is not to the effect that such infoimations aie to be given like
pamphlets to any peison unminuful of the object behinu seeking such
infoimation. We shoulu not be mistaken as if we aie saying something against
the intention of the Legislatuie. What we want to emphasise is that a Legislation,
moie paiticulaily, the one on hanu, must achieve the object, viz., conciete anu
effective functioning of the public authoiity with tianspaiency anu
accountability by pioviuing the infoimation which aie unuei the contiol of such
public authoiities. If the "iight" pioviueu unuei the RTI Act is misuseu, eithei as
an intimiuation oi as a thieat against the effective functioning of the public
authoiities, oi such conuuct woulu ueviate the auministiation fiom its effective
functioning, the Couits will always weigh the balance anu lift the veil to finu out
as to whethei the applicant has sought the infoimation with bona-fiue intention
anu as to whethei such infoimation has any ielevance foi his iequest. It is
neeuless to say that while the "use" is to be encouiageu, the "misuse" has to be
cuitaileu anu nibbeu at the buu.
22. Keeping the above piinciples in minu, let us consiuei the piesent case.
The issue involveu in this case is as to whethei the uisputeu infoimation sought
foi by the seconu iesponuent anu as uiiecteu by the fiist iesponuent-
Commission to fuinish, can be fuinisheu oi not. The saiu issue is no moie "ies-
integia", in view of the eailiei uecisions of this Couit in the following cases:
(a) It is ielevant to notice that similai issue aiose befoie a Bivision Bench
of this Couit in iespect of the infoimation ielating to the employees of the
Suboiuinate Couits}uuicial 0fficeis, etc., in the uecision iepoiteu in 2u1S (S)
NL} 1S4 (Registiai ueneial of Bigh Couit of Nauias vs. K.Elango), wheiein the
Bivision Bench in paiagiaph S9 has obseiveu that the notings, jottings,
auministiative letteis, intiicate inteinal uiscussions, uelibeiations etc., of the
Bigh Couit cannot be biought unuei Section 2(j) of the RTI Act anu fuinishing of
those infoimation will ceitainly impeue anu hinuei the iegulai, smooth anu
piopei functioning of the institution. The ielevant paiagiaphs S9 to 61 of the
abovesaiu uecision aie extiacteu heieunuei:
"S9. Be that as it may, on a caieful consiueiation of iespective contentions
anu on going thiough the contents of the application uateu u1.11.2u1u fileu by
the 1st ResponuentApplicant, this Couit is of the consiueieu view that the
infoimation sought foi by him in Seiial Nos.1 to 9 peitaining to the inteinal
uelicate functioningauministiation of the Bigh Couit besiues the same ielate to
invasion of piivacy of iespective inuiviuuals if the infoimations so askeu foi aie
fuinisheu anu moie so, the infoimations sought foi have no ielationship to any
public activity oi inteiest. Noieovei, the infoimations sought foi by the 1st
Responuent Applicant, thiough his application uateu u1.11.2u1u auuiesseu to
the Public Infoimation 0fficei of the Bigh Couit, Chennai, aie not to a fullei
extent open to public uomain. Auueu fuithei, if the infoimations sought foi by
the 1st ResponuentApplicant, thiough his lettei uateu u1.11.2u1u auuiesseu to
the Public Infoimation 0fficei of Bigh Couit, aie uivulgeu, then, it will open
floougatesPanuoia Box compelling the PetitioneiBigh Couit to supply the
infoimations sought foi by the conceineu Requisitionists as a mattei of ioutine,
without any ihyme oi ieasonsiestiictions as the case may be. Theiefoie, some
self iestiictions aie to be imposeu in iegaiu to the supply of infoimations in this
iegaiu. As a mattei of fact, the Notings, }ottings, Auministiative Letteis, Intiicate
Inteinal Biscussions, Belibeiations etc. of the PetitioneiBigh Couit cannot be
biought unuei Section 2(j) of the Right to Infoimation Act, 2uuS, in oui
consiueieu opinion of this Couit. Also that, if the infoimations ielating to Seiial
Nos.1 to 9 mentioneu in the application of the 1st ResponuentApplicant uateu
u1.11.2u1u aie uiiecteu to be fuinisheu oi supplieu with, then, ceitainly, it will
impeue anu hinuei the iegulai, smooth anu piopei functioning of the Institution
viz., Bigh Couit (an inuepenuent authoiity unuei the Constitution of Inuia, fiee
fiom Executive oi Legislatuie), as opineu by this Couit. As such, a Sanei
CounselBalancing Act is to be auopteu in matteis ielating to the application of
the Right to Infoimation Act, 2uuS, so that an auequate fieeuom anu inbuilt
safeguaiu can be pioviueu to the Bon'ble Chief }ustice of Bigh Couit competent
authoiity anu public authoiity as pei Section 2(e)(iii) anu 2(h)(a) of the Act 22 of
2uuS in exeicising his uiscietionaiy poweis eithei to supply the infoimation oi
to ueny the infoimation, as piayeu foi by the ApplicantsRequisitionists
conceineu.
6u. Apait fiom the above, if the infoimations iequesteu by the 1st
ResponuentApplicant, baseu on his lettei uateu u1.11.2u1u, aie supplieu with,
then, it will have an auveise impact on the iegulai anu noimal, seiene
functioning of the Bigh Couit's 0ffice on the Auministiative siue. Theiefoie, we
come to an iiiesistible conclusion that the 1st ResponuentApplicant is not
entitleu to be supplieu with the infoimationsuetails sought foi by him, in his
Application uateu u1.11.2u1u auuiesseu to the Public Infoimation 0fficei of the
Bigh Couit, Nauias unuei the piovisions of the Right to Infoimation Act. Even on
the giounu of (i) maintaining confiuentiality; (ii) baseu on the ieason that the
piivate oi peisonal infoimation is exempteu fiom uisclosuie unuei Section
8(1)(j) of the Act, 2uuS; anu (iii) also unuei Section 8(1)(e) of the Act in lieu of
fiuuciaiy ielationship maintaineu by the Bigh Couit, the iequest of the 1st
ResponuentApplicant, thiough his Lettei uateu u1.11.2u1uAppeal uateu
2u.12.2u1u unuei Section 19 of the Act to the Wiit PetitioneiAppellate
Authoiity, cannot be acceueu to by this Couit. Fuithei, we aie of the consiueieu
view that the 1st ResponuentApplicant has no locus stanui to seek foi the
uetails sought foi by him, as stateu supia, in a wholesale, omnibus anu
mechanical fashion in the subject mattei in issue, (eithei as a mattei of
iightioutine unuei the Right to Infoimation Act) because of the simple ieason
that he has no enfoiceable legal iight. Also, we opine that the 1st
ResponuentApplicant's iequests, thiough his Application uateu u1.11.2u1u anu
his Appeal uateu 2u.12.2u1u, suffei fiom want of bona fiues (notwithstanuing
the canuiu fact that Section 6 of the Right to Infoimation Act uoes not eithei
oveitly oi coveitly iefeis to the 'concept of Locus').
61. To put it uiffeiently, if the infoimations sought foi by the 1st
ResponuentApplicant, thiough his lettei uateu u1.11.2u1uAppeal uateu
2u.12.2u1u, aie uivulgeu oi fuinisheu by the 0ffice of the Bigh Couit (on
auministiative siue), then, the seciecy anu piivacy of the inteinal woiking
piocess may get jeopaiuiseu, besiues the fuinishing of saiu infoimations woulu
iesult in invasion of unwaiianteu anu uncalleu foi piivacy of inuiviuuals
conceineu. Even the uisclosuie of infoimations peitaining to uepaitmental
enquiiies in iespect of Bisciplinaiy Actions initiateu against the }uuicial
0fficeis0fficials of the Suboiuinate Couit oi the Bigh Couit will affect the facile,
smooth anu inuepenuent iunning of the auministiation of the Bigh Couit, unuei
the Constitution of Inuia. Noieovei, as pei Section 2(e) of the ieau with Section
28 of the Right to Infoimation Act, the Bon'ble Chief }ustice of this Couit is
empoweieu to fiame iules to caiiy out the piovisions of the Act. In this iegaiu,
we point out that 'Nauias Bigh Couit Right to Infoimation (Regulation of Fee
anu Cost) Rules, 2uu7' have been fiameu viue R.0.C.No.26S6-Au6F1-SR0 C-
S2uu8 in Tamil Nauu uazette, No.2u, uateu 21.uS.2uu8, Pt.III, S.2. Also, a
Notification, in Roc.No.976 A2uu8RTI uateu 18.11.2uu8, has been issueu by
this Couit to the saiu Rules, by biinging ceitain amenuments in iegaiu to the
Name anu Besignation of the 0fficeis mentioneu theiein, the same has come
into foice fiom 18.11.2uu8."

(b) In the uecision iepoiteu in 2u1S (S) NL} S1S (Registiai ueneial, Bigh
Couit of Nauias vs. R.N.Subiamanian), a Bivision Bench of this Couit obseiveu
in paiagiaphs 94 to 96 as follows:
"94. To put it succinctly, the copies of Ninutes iecoiueu by the Bon'ble
Poitfolio }uuge, Puuukottai Bistiict uateu 16.12.2u1u anu the Ninutes iecoiueu
by the Bon'ble Chief }ustice on u7.uS.2u11 in the Ciiminal Contempt Petition
issue, cannot be fuinisheu oi supplieu to the 1st ResponuentPetitionei, foi the
puipose of maintaining utmost confiuentiality anu seciecy of the uelicate
function of the inteinal matteis of Bigh Couit. If the copies of the Ninutes uateu
16.12.2u1u anu u7.uS.2u11, as claimeu by the 1st ResponuentPetitionei, aie
fuinisheu, then, it will uefinitely make an inioau to the piopei, seiene function of
the Bon'ble Bigh Couit being an Inuepenuent Authoiity unuei the Constitution
of Inuia. Noieovei, the Bon'ble Chief }ustice of Bigh Couit |as Competent
Authoiity - Public Authoiity unuei Section 2(e)(iii) anu 2(h)(a) of the Act, 22 of
2uuS anu also Plenipotentiaiy in the }uuicial hieiaichyj can be pioviueu with an
enough fieeuom anu inbuilt safeguaius in exeicising his uiscietionaiy poweis
eithei to fuinish the infoimation oi not to pait with the infoimation, as piayeu
foi by any applicant much less the 1st ResponuentPetitionei.
9S. That apait, if the copies of the Ninutes uateu 16.12.2u1u anu
u7.uS.2u11 aie supplieu to the 1st ResponuentPetitionei, then, the inteiest of
the auministiation of the Bigh Couit will get jeopaiuiseu anu also it will peifoice
the PetitioneiBigh Couit to fuinish the infoimations sought foi by the
conceineu ApplicantsRequisitionists as a mattei of usual couise without any
qualms oi ihyme oi ieasonsiestiictions. In effect, to upholu the uignity anu
majesty of the Bon'ble Bigh Couit - being an Inuepenuent Authoiity unuei the
Constitution of Inuia, some self-iestiictions aie to be imposeu as iegaius the
supply of inteinaluomestic functioning of the Bon'ble Bigh Couit anu its office
infoimations in iespect of matteis which aie highly confiuential in natuie
inasmuch as it conceins with the Intiicate, Inteinal Biscussions anu
Belibeiations, Notings, }ottings anu Auministiative Becisions taken on vaiious
matteis at uiffeient levels anu as such, they aie exempteu fiom uisclosuie unuei
Section 8(e)(i)(j) of the Right to Infoimation Act, 2uuS. Even otheiwise, they aie
not open to litigantspublic without iestiictions. No wonuei, it can be fittingly
obseiveu that if Impaitiality is the Soul of }uuiciaiy, then, Inuepenuence is the
Life Bloou of }uuiciaiy. Also that, without Inuepenuence, Impaitiality cannot
thiivesuivive.
96. In shoit, if the infoimations sought foi by the 1st Responuent
Petitionei aie fuinisheu, then, it will piejuuicially affect the confiuential inteiest,
piivacy anu well being of the Bigh Couit, in the consiueieu opinion of this Couit.
In any event, the 1st ResponuentPetitionei cannot invoke the aiu of Clause S7 of
Amenueu Letteis Patent uealing with 'Regulation of Pioceeuings' anu also 0iuei
XII |peitaining to the entitlement of Ceitifieu Copiesj of the Rules of the Bigh
Couit, Nauias, Appellate Siue, 196S, since they aie not applicable to him."

2S. In this case, insofai as queiies (i) anu (v) aie conceineu, the
infoimation sought foi by the seconu iesponuent is with iegaiu to the action
taken on his complaint against the Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie,
Chennai. It is seen that insofai as queiy (i) is conceineu, the petitionei has calleu
upon the seconu iesponuent to peiuse the files iegaiuing the action taken on the
seconu iesponuent's complaint, uateu 1.6.2u11. In the countei affiuavit, the
seconu iesponuent aumitteu that he peiuseu the files on S.2.2u12 anu howevei,
ceitifieu copiescopies of the file notings oi oiueis weie not given to him.
Insofai queiy (v) is conceineu, it is seen that the petitionei has infoimeu the
seconu iesponuent on 28.S.2u12 that his complaint, uateu 1u.12.2u11 fileu
against the Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie, Chennai, hau been closeu. In
fact, the saiu fact is not uisputeu by the seconu iesponuent. 0n the othei hanu, in
the countei affiuavit, the seconu iesponuent aumitteu that thiough
communication, uateu 28.S.2u12, he was infoimeu that his petition hau been
oiueieu to be closeu. Apait fiom the abovesaiu fact, uuiing the penuency of the
piesent Wiit Petition, the Registiai (vigilance) of this Couit has infoimeu the
seconu iesponuent thiough communication, uateu 21.8.2u14 about the action
taken on his complaint against the Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie,
Chennai, infoiming as follows:

"Sii,
Sub: Fuinishing of infoimation - Regaiuing.
Ref: Youi complaint uateu u2.u6.2u11 anu 29.u9.2u11,
u1.11.2u11, S1.1u.2u11, 1u.12.2u11
----
I am to infoim you that youi complaint uateu u2.u6.2u11 maue against
the Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate (name not mentioneu), Egmoie, Chennai has
been ieceiveu anu assigneu Roc.No.4u92u11vC. 0n peiusal of the complaint,
the Bon'ble The Chief }ustice has been oiueieu as "Repoit may be calleu foi fiom
Chief Netiopolitan Nagistiate, Egmoie, Chennai anu on peiusal of the iepoit
submitteu, the Bon'ble the Chief }ustice has oiueieu as "Repoit may be accepteu
anu closeu."

Fuithei I am to infoim that the complaints uateu 29.u9.2u11, u1.11.2u11,
S1.1u.2u11 anu 1u.12.2u11 has been ieceiveu anu assigneu
Roc.No.642S2u11vCTapal, 64282u11vCTapal, 64Su2u11vCTapal anu
7162u12vCTapal anu they weie oiueieu to be placeu befoie the Bon'ble
Auministiative Committee anu the Bon'ble Auministiative Committee iesolveu
to holu an enquiiy peitaining to the allegations against the Suboiuinate }uuicial
0fficei anu staff membeis of the Bigh Couit by the Registiai (vigilance) anu on
peiusal of the enquiiy iepoit, the Bon'ble Auministiative Committee has
iesolveu to close the pioceeuings initiateu.


Youis faithfully,
Su-
Registiai (vigilance)"

24. Consiueiing the above stateu facts anu ciicumstances, we finu that the
seconu iesponuent cannot have any giievance, as the petitionei has peimitteu
the seconu iesponuent to peiuse the files iegaiuing the action taken anu also
infoimeu him of the fact that his complaint hau been oiueieu to be closeu.
Bowevei, the seconu iesponuent contenus that the file notings anu othei
minutes sought foi in his complaint weie not fuinisheu. Such infoimation cannot
be fuinisheu to the seconu iesponuent, as helu by this Couit in the uecision
iepoiteu in 2u1S (S) NL} 1S4 (citeu supia).
2S. Insofai as queiies (ii) anu (iii) aie conceineu, the seconu iesponuent
was infoimeu by the petitionei that theie aie no ieciuitment iules foi the post of
Registiai ueneial anu theie is no Selection Committee foi that post. In the
absence of any such infoimation being available, the seconu iesponuent cannot
compel the petitionei to fuinish the same. Even otheiwise, as alieauy obseiveu
by the Bivision Bench of this Couit in the uecision iepoiteu in 2u1S (S) NL} 1S4
(Registiai ueneial of Bigh Couit of Nauias vs. K.Elango), fuinishing of those
infoimation with iegaiu to the Registiai ueneial which has been uone by the
Bonouiable Chief }ustice of this Couit, cannot be biought unuei the puiview of
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, as, such infoimation peitain to the inteinal intiicate
functioningauministiation of the Bigh Couit anu such infoimation has no
ielationship with any public activity oi inteiest. As obseiveu by the Bivision
Bench theiein, ceitainly, fuinishing of those infoimation will hinuei the iegulai,
smooth anu piopei functioning of the institution, unnecessaiily waiianting
sciupulous litigations. In fact, a peiusal of the pleauings, moie paiticulaily, the
application maue by the seconu iesponuent as well as the countei affiuavit fileu
in this Wiit Petition, woulu show that the seconu iesponuent has not uiscloseu
even the basic ieason foi seeking those infoimations. 0n the othei hanu, he has
maue those applications mechanically, as a mattei of ioutine unuei the RTI Act.
The Bivision Bench of this Couit, in the saiu uecision, has also obseiveu that the
fiist iesponuent in that Wiit Petition who is similai to the piesent seconu
iesponuent, has no locus-stanui to seek foi the uetails sought foi by him, as he
has no enfoiceable legal iight. Fuithei, posting a Senioi Bistiict }uuge as
Registiai ueneial by the Bonouiable Chief }ustice is in exeicise of poweis
confeiieu unuei Aiticle 229 of the Constitution of Inuia anu the seconu
iesponuent oi any othei peison incluuing othei }uuges, has no say in the saiu
mattei. The saiu issue is alieauy settleu by the Bonouiable Supieme Couit in the
uecision iepoiteu in 1998 (S) SCC 72 (Bigh Couit }uuicatuie foi Rajasthan vs.
Ramesh Chanu Paliwal) anu in paiagiaph S8, the Bonouiable Supieme Couit
helu that unuei the Constitutional Scheme, Chief }ustice is the supieme authoiity
anu othei }uuges, so fai as officeis anu seivants of the Bigh Couit aie conceineu,
have no iole to play on the auministiative siue. The saiu position is ieiteiateu in
the subsequent uecision of the Supieme Couit iepoiteu in 2u12 (1) NL} 289 (SC)
(Registiai ueneial vs. R.Peiachi).
26. Insofai as queiy (iv) is conceineu, we fail to unueistanu as to how the
seconu iesponuent is entitleu to justify his claim foi seeking the copies of his
own complaints anu appeals. It is neeuless to say that they aie not the
infoimation available within the knowleuge of the petitionei; on the othei hanu,
aumitteuly, they aie the uocuments of the seconu iesponuent himself, anu
theiefoie, if he uoes not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself anu he
cannot seek those uetails as a mattei of iight, thinking that the Bigh Couit will
pieseive his fiivolous applications as tieasuiesvaluable assets. Fuithei, those
uocuments cannot be biought unuei the uefinition "infoimation" as uefineu
unuei Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Theiefoie, we ieject the contention of the
seconu iesponuent in this aspect.
27. Insofai as queiy (vi) is conceineu, aumitteuly, the mattei is sub-juuice
anu penuing befoie the Bigh Couit in Cil.0.P.No.188u4 of 2u1u. To that effect,
alieauy infoimation hau been fuinisheu by the petitionei to the seconu
iesponuent on 1S.S.2u12 infoiming that his petition has been put up along with
the case bunule. Theiefoie, the seconu iesponuent is not entitleu to get any
infoimation with iegaiu to the pioceeuings penuing befoie the Couit of Law anu
if at all he wants any uocument ielating to the penuing casecases, he has to only
apply foi ceitifieu copy anu obtain the same in teims of the Rules fiameu by the
Bigh Couit. No uoubt, the seconu iesponuent is seeking infoimation iegaiuing
the action taken against inclusion of one Ns.ueetha Ramaseshan as Auvocate in
Cil.0.P.No.188u4 of 2u1u. Since his complaint has been put up along with the
case bunule, which is penuing befoie Couit, the petitionei, ceitainly, is piecluueu
fiom fuinishing any infoimation, as the mattei is seizeu of by the Couit in
Cil.0.P.No.188u4 of 2u1u on its juuicial siue.
28. Consiueiing the facts anu ciicumstances of the piesent case as stateu
above anu also going by the eailiei uecisions ienueieu by the Bonouiable
Supieme Couit anu the Bivision Benches of this Couit, citeu supia, we aie of the
view that the piesent case is squaiely coveieu by those uecisions against the
seconu iesponuent, anu theiefoie, the seconu iesponuent is not entitleu to get
the infoimation in iespect of those six appeals by way of attesteu file copies of
the ielevant uocuments incluuing the file notings anu the coiiesponuences maue
theieon. The impugneu oiuei of the fiist iesponuent-Commission in uiiecting
the petitionei to fuinish those infoimation, is eiioneous anu not sustainable, in
view of the eailiei uecisions ienueieu by this Couit anu the Bonouiable
Supieme Couit as uiscusseu supia. Bence, the impugneu oiuei passeu by the
fiist iesponuent-Commission insofai as six appeals aie conceineu, is liable to be
set asiue.
29. Insofai as the othei 47 complaints wheiein the fiist iesponuent-
Commission has passeu an oiuei uiiecting the petitionei to piepaie a tabulai
statement listing all the complaints anu iepiesentations ieceiveu fiom the
seconu iesponuent, aie conceineu, we aie not in a position to unueistanu as to
what aie those 47 complaints oi applications maue by the seconu iesponuent
anu what aie the infoimations that aie sought foi in those queiies. A peiusal of
the impugneu oiuei passeu by the fiist iesponuent-Commission uoes not
inuicate any uetail with iegaiu to those 47 complaint cases. In the absence of
those mateiial uetails, we aie not in a position to appieciate the oiuei passeu by
the fiist iesponuent-Commission uiiecting the petitionei to piepaie a tabulai
statement listing all the complaints anu the iepiesentations ieceiveu fiom the
seconu iesponuent being uealt with on the auministiative anu juuicial siues of
this Couit anu the cuiient status of the action taken theieon. Theiefoie, we aie
of the view that the impugneu oiuei of the fiist iesponuent is beieft of any
mateiial paiticulais insofai as those 47 RTI applications iefeiieu to in the
impugneu oiuei anu the uiiection issueu to the petitionei in that iegaiu is also
not sustainable.
Su. In fact, the fiist iesponuent-Commission itself has uepiecateu the
piactice of the seconu iesponuent heiein in oveiloauing the Registiy of this
Couit by making seveial queiies oi complaints one aftei anothei anu following
the same unuei the RTI Act. Baving founu that the action of the seconu
iesponuent in senuing numeious complaints anu iepiesentations anu then
following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to ieuiess
his giievance; that he cannot oveiloau a public authoiity anu uiveit its iesouices
uispiopoitionately while seeking infoimation anu that the uispensation of
infoimation shoulu not occupy the majoiity of time anu iesouice of any public
authoiity, as it woulu be against the laigei public inteiest, the fiist iesponuent-
Commission cleaily eiieu in passing the impugneu oiuei in this Wiit Petition,
uiiecting the petitionei to fuinish the uetails to the seconu iesponuent as well as
senuing a tabulai statement listing all the complaints anu iepiesentations
ieceiveu fiom the seconu iesponuent.
S1. Foi the foiegoing ieasonings, the impugneu oiuei of the fiist
iesponuent-Commission is set asiue anu the Wiit Petition is alloweu. No costs.
The Niscellaneous Petition is closeu.


(N.P.v.}) (K.R.C.B.})
17.u9.2u14
Inuex: Yesno
Inteinet: Yesno
cs



To

1. The Cential Infoimation Commission,
Rep. by its Registiai,
Room No.Su6, 2nu Flooi, "B" Wing,
August Kianti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Belhi-11u u66.

2. The Public Infoimation 0fficei,
The Registiai (Auministiation),
Bigh Couit, Nauias.













N.PA0L vASANTBAK0NAR,}
anu
K.RAvICBANBRABAAB0,}


cs








0iuei in
W.P.No.26781 of 2u1S








17.9.2u14