Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/SM/C/2012/900378 to 384, CIC/SM/C/2012/000600, 601, 970 to 975,

993 to 1000, 1120 to 1131, 1133, 1134, 1145 to 1152, 1162, 1163,
CIC/SM/A/2012/900540, CIC/SM/A/2012/000955, 1558, 1776 to 1778
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
23 January 2013
23 January 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri B Bharathi,
57, Kavi Kuli Street,
Ashok Nagar, Lawspet,
Puducherry 605 008.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Madras High Court,
Broadway,
Chennai 600 108.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Smt. Sushila Devi, APIO,
(ii) Shri C.T. Mohan, Advocate
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant/Complainant was present in the Puducherry studio of the
NIC. The Respondent was present in the Chennai studio along with an
Advocate. We heard all the submissions.
3. There are in all 53 cases registered in the CIC filed by the same
Appellant/Complainant. Out of these, 47 are complaint cases while the
remaining 6 have been registered as second appeals. In the complaints, the
main information sought is about the records relating to the action taken on
various representations and complaints the complainant himself and his wife
had sent to the Madras High Court, from time to time, on various issues. In
some of these cases, he had complained that he had been allowed inspection
of the relevant records but was not provided with the copies of those records
when he had demanded for the same. In case of the 6 second appeals, he had
sought a variety of information, some relating to the action taken on
complaints/representations and some others relating to the copies of various
other records. In some of these cases, the CPIO concerned had responded,
sometimes giving some information and some other times denying the same. It
also appears that he had been allowed to inspect some of these records but
was not provided with the photocopies of the records when demanded.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the CPIO
of the Madras High Court was not helpful in providing any information which
compelled him to file so many complaints/appeals. Particularly, he submitted
that, even in those cases where he had been allowed to inspect the records, he
was not provided with the copies of those records when demanded. From his
submissions, it is clear that he has a lot of grievance against the Madras High
Court in a variety of matters including in the matter of appointment of a certain
individual District Judge as the Registrar General of the High Court and the
concurrence given by the High Court for appointment of Public Prosecutors. He
seems to be following up his complaints with RTI applications. There is a
recurrent pattern in his RTI applications, most of these seeking similar
information and almost all relating to the action taken on various complaints and
representations. Although the CIC has registered 47 complaints and 6 second
appeals, according to the Appellant/Complainant, this number should have
been much higher since he had filed many more second appeals which the CIC
had ignored to register. While 53 complaints and appeals from one single
person is impressive enough, more such complaints and appeals would be
rather staggering.
5. The Respondent submitted that the High Court had been inundated with
complaints and representations from the Appellant/Complainant as well as with
his unceasing RTI applications. He also submitted that while efforts had always
been made to address his RTI requests, handling such a barrage of requests
had an unsettling effect on the working of the relevant sections in the High
Court's Registry. He pointed out that many of his complaints and
representations had been referred to the judicial side as these concerned
pending cases before the High Court. Further action on those complaints and
representations, therefore, has become part of the judicial proceedings of the
relevant cases. Information regarding those could be accessed only by getting
the certified copies of the relevant records as per the rules specifically framed
by the High Court in this regard; such information cannot be accessed under
RTI. He clarified that out of the several complaints and representations referred
to the vigilance section of the High Court for inquiry, many of those cases were
under investigation and the details of that could not be disclosed while the
investigation was on. In sum, he submitted that the Appellant/Complainant had
been seeking information which could not simply be provided to him.
6. We have very carefully considered the situation arising out of such large
number of complaints and second appeals. Before we go into the impact of
such a relentless campaign of complaints and representations followed by RTI
applications and consequent first and second appeals, we would like to dwell
substantively on the 47 complaints and 6 second appeals registered with us. In
dealing with complaints filed under section 18 of the Right to Information (RTI)
Act, we have to abide by the order of the Supreme Court in the Manipur SIC
case in which the Apex Court had ruled that the Information Commissions
should not direct the public authorities to disclose any information while dealing
with such complaints and could only enquire into the complaints and decide on
imposition of appropriate penalties, wherever called for. The court had held
that, only in dealing with a second appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act that
the Information Commission could order disclosure of information. Keeping this
in mind, as far as the 47 complaints are concerned, we would like to pass the
following order in order to elicit all the relevant information for proceeding with
the enquiry with a view to establishing if the CPIO had committed any wrong in
dealing with the RTI applications.
7. We direct the CPIO to prepare a tabular statement listing all the
complaints and representations received from the Appellant/Complainant, as
claimed in his RTI applications, and showing, separately, the complaints and
representations being dealt with in the administrative and judicial sides. About
those complaints and representations dealt with in the administrative side, the
CPIO shall also indicate in the above tabular statement the current status of the
action taken. Those which are being dealt within the judicial side as part of
judicial proceedings, the CPIO shall indicate the case number in which any
particular complaint/representation is under consideration. We direct the CPIO
to send this statement in 20 working days from the receipt of this order.
Besides, we also direct him to send us a statement showing the date on which
each of these 47 RTI applications had been received by him and the date on
which he had replied to each one of these, with or without any information.
8. Now, dealing with the 6 second appeals, we would like to direct the
CPIO to write to the Appellant within 20 working days of receiving this order and
to provide to him the desired information in these cases by way of attested
photocopies of the relevant documents including the file noting, wherever
available, and any correspondence made. More specifically, in the case
concerning the appointment of the Registrar General, he must provide the
photocopy of the file notings, if any, from the file in which the proposal for
appointment of the said particular individual as a Registered General had been
processed and finalised. The CPIO shall also provide him with the photocopy of
the relevant file notings, if any, from the file in which the
Appellant/Complainant's complaint against the appointment of the individual
concerned was dealt with. Similarly, in the case dealing with the appointment of
Public Prosecutors since 2006, the CPIO must provide the photocopies of the
letters containing the concurrence or otherwise of the High Court about specific
individuals proposed by the State Government. Finally, we direct the CPIO to
provide him within this period, the copies of those records which he had
inspected.
9. We would like to end this with a word of caution to the
Appellant/Complainant. He has every right to seek legitimate information. In the
process, he must not derail the working of the public authority by flooding it with
numerous RTI applications. By his own admission during the hearing, he had
sent bundles of RTI applications on various dates. 53 of these have landed up
in the CIC by way of complaints and second appeals. No single citizen can
have a monopoly over the public authorities, be it the Madras High Court, as in
this case, or the CIC. The Right to Information (RTI) Act seeks to establish a
practical regime for providing information to the citizens, as evident in the
preamble of the Act. The disclosure of information must be commensurate and
in conformity with the smooth functioning of the public authorities. This
particular case shows how a single individual can overload a public authority
and divert its resources rather disproportionately while seeking information. It is
understandable that the Appellant/Complainant may have a lot of grievance
against the Madras High Court. Sending numerous complaints and
representations about these grievances and then following those with RTI
applications cannot be the way to redress such grievances. The concern
expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the CBSE case is very relevant to
remember. The Apex Court had said that the dispensation of information should
not occupy the majority of the time and resources of any public authority
because that would be against the larger public interest. Even in the pursuit of
information, brevity is the soul of wit; a few RTI applications seeking very
pertinent and specific information can reveal more than several dozen of
repetitive petitioning.
10. On receipt of the statement on the complaints from the CPIO, as
directed above, we will finally decide on the 47 complaints. As far as the 6
second appeals are concerned, those are disposed of as above.
11. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar