RTI judgement to get Certified copies from court

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00064/SG/1287
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/00064
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. N. Venkatesan
Plot No. 28, 1st Floor,
Krishnamachari Nagar,
2nd Street, Alapakkam,
Chennai-600116
Respondent 1 : Mr. Raj Kumar Khudania
Superintendent
Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Office of the District and Sessions Judge
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054
RTI application filed on : 01/08/2008
Reply of the PIO : 11/08/2008
First Appeal filed on : 24/08/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 10/09/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 23/10/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information in form of the certified copies of the judgment issued under the case No. HMA 926 of 2005 (Lt Col. Srinivas v Subha Srinivas ) from Mr. Raj Kumar Khudania, Superintendent, Public Information Officer (CPIO), Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054.
The PIO replied stating that the appellant can move the application before the concerned copying agency as per the rules for obtaining certified copies after paying necessary charges as per the rules.
Not satisfied by the Reply of PIO the appellant filed First Appeal on 24/08/2008.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
‘In the view of provisions contained in Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the appellant who is not a party to the said matrimonial proceedings cannot be supplied a copy and judgment or decree. Further the appellant was informed about the name of the copying agency i.e. Copying Agency, Sessions, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.’
Relevant facts emerging during hearing on 20 January 2009:
The following were present.
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. K.S.Rawat PIO
The PIO states that:
1- No information is being ‘held’ by the Court because there is a provision of the inspection of the record with the permission of the court and taking certified copy from the copying agency Under Section 76 of the Indian evidence act and if the case is pending before the court of law, it is a dispute between a party and party to the case can inspect the file with the permission of the Court, otherwise it will be contempt of court under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI act. The PIO contends that the word ‘held’ occurring in Section 2(j) means “withholding and not giving.”
2- It has not been indicated in the application whether the information required, belongs to the third party.
3- The applicant is an advocate and it has not been disclosed whether the information is required is under the profession or not.
The order is reserved.
Decision given on 27 January 2009 :
The denial by the PIO is based on the three contention made by him before the Commission. He has also claimed that since there are existing rules for giving certified copies from the concerned agency the appellant must obtain the information by using the copying agency.
The First appellate authority has given two contradictory directions by first stating that the information cannot be given as per provisions of the Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act and then implied that the information could be obtained from the Copying agency.
We will first deal with the contentions of the PIO. He has invented a meaning of the word ‘held’ as meaning ‘withholding and not giving’. The word ‘held’ is usually understood to mean to be in possession of. ‘Held is a past participle of the word ‘hold’. Oxford Dictionary defines hold as ‘grasp, carry or support; have in one’s possession’. Nobody would ascribe the meaning ‘withholding and not giving up’ as contended by the PIO. Since there is no specific order of a Court expressly forbidding the information from being published the PIOs plea that disclosing this information will constitute contempt of court is without any basis.
The PIO states that the applicant has not disclosed whether the information belongs to a third party, and that he has not disclosed whether the information is required by him for use in his profession. Neither of these is relevant, since there is no requirement in law for the applicant to disclose either of these.
The First appellate authority’s has stated that under Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 a copy of the judgement passed by a Matrimonial Court cannot be supplied. The RTI act at Section 22 has clearly stated, ‘ The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.’. Hence unless there is a provision in the RTI act to deny the information, it will have to be provided.
No claim has been made by the PIO of any exemption under the RTI act to deny the information.
If a Public authority has a process of disclosing certain information which can also be accessed by a Citizen using Right to Information, it is the Citizen’s right to decide which route he wishes to use. The existence of another method of accessing information cannot be used to deny the Citizen his freedom to use his fundamental right codified under the Right to Information Act. If Parliament wanted to restrict his right, it would have been stated in the Law. Nobody else has the right to constrain or constrict the rights of the Citizen.
There is no proviso in the Right to Information Act which restrains the Citizen’s right to use it, if another route to avail information has been offered. It is a Citizen’s right to use the most convenient and efficacious means available to him.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the certified copies of the judgment issued under the case No. HMA 926 of 2005 (Lt Col. Srinivas v Subha Srinivas ) to the appellant free of cost before 10 February 2009.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 January 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)