Head
Note
HELD: Under s.6,
an applicant is entitled to get only such information
which can be
accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for
the
time being in
force - The answers sought by petitioner in the application
could not have
been with the public authority nor could he have access to
the information -
A judge speaks through his judgments and orders passed by
him - He is not
bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to
such a conclusion
- If any party feels aggrieved, the remedy available is
to challenge the
decision by way of appeal, revision or any other legally
permissible mode
- No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why
and for what
reason the judge had came to a particular conclusion -
Application filed
by the petitioner before the public authority is per se
illegal and
unwarranted - A Judicial Officer is entitled to protection and
the object of the
same is to protect public from the dangers to which the
administration of
justice would be exposed if judicial officers were
exposed to
inquiry as to malice or to litigation with those whom their
decision might
offend - If any thing is done contrary to this, it would
certainly affect
the Independence of the judiciary - A judge should be free
to make decisions
- As the petitioner has misused the provisions of the RTI
Act, High Court rightly dismissed his
writ petition - Judicial Officers'
Protection Act, 1850 - Independence of
judiciary.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP
(Civil) No. 34868 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated
24.4.2009 of the High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
Petition No. 28810 of 2008.
V. Kanagraj, Parmanand Gaur for the
Petitioner.
Subject
Right to Information Act, 2005:
ss. 2(f) and 6 - `Information' -
Application u/s 6 before Administrative
Officer-cum-Assistant State Public
Information Officer, asking as for what
reasons a Judicial Officer had
dismissed a miscellaneous appeal -
Judgement
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)
NO.34868 OF 2009
Khanapuram Gandaiah
... Petitioner
Vs.
Administrative Officer & Ors.
... Respondents
ORDER
1. This special leave petition has
been filed against the judgment and
order dated 24.4.2009 passed in Writ
Petition No.28810 of 2008 by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the
writ petition against the order of
dismissal of the petitioner's
application and successive appeals under the
Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter called the "RTI Act") has been
dismissed. In the said petition, the
direction was sought by the Petitioner to
the Respondent No.1 to provide
information as asked by him vide his
application dated 15.11.2006 from the
Respondent No.4 - a Judicial Officer
as for what reasons, the Respondent
No.4 had decided his Miscellaneous
Appeal dishonestly.
2
2. The facts and circumstances
giving rise to this case are, that the
petitioner claimed to be in exclusive
possession of the land in respect of
which civil suit No.854 of 2002 was
filed before Additional Civil Judge,
Ranga Reddy District praying for
perpetual injunction by Dr. Mallikarjina
Rao against the petitioner and another,
from entering into the suit land.
Application filed for interim relief in
the said suit stood dismissed. Being
aggrieved, the plaintiff therein
preferred CMA No.185 of 2002 and the same
was also dismissed. Two other suits
were filed in respect of the same
property impleading the Petitioner also
as the defendant. In one of the suits
i.e. O.S. No.875 of 2003, the Trial
Court granted temporary injunction
against the Petitioner. Being
aggrieved, Petitioner preferred the CMA No.67
of 2005, which was dismissed by the
Appellate Court - Respondent No.4
vide order dated 10.8.2006.
3. Petitioner filed an application
dated 15.11.2006 under Section 6 of the
RTI Act before the Administrative
Officer-cum-Assistant State Public
Information Officer (respondent no.1)
seeking information to the queries
mentioned therein. The said application
was rejected vide order dated
23.11.2006 and an appeal against the
said order was also dismissed vide
order dated 20.1.2007. Second Appeal
against the said order was also
3
dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State
Information Commission vide order
dated 20.11.2007. The petitioner
challenged the said order before the High
Court, seeking a direction to the
Respondent No.1 to furnish the information
as under what circumstances the
Respondent No.4 had passed the Judicial
Order dismissing the appeal against the
interim relief granted by the Trial
Court. The Respondent No.4 had been
impleaded as respondent by name.
The Writ Petition had been dismissed by
the High Court on the grounds that
the information sought by the
petitioner cannot be asked for under the RTI
Act. Thus, the application was not
maintainable. More so, the judicial
officers are protected by the Judicial
Officers' Protection Act, 1850
(hereinafter called the "Act
1850"). Hence, this petition.
4. Mr. V. Kanagaraj, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that right to information
is a fundamental right of every
citizen. The RTI Act does not provide
for any special protection to the
Judges, thus petitioner has a right to
know the reasons as to how the
Respondent No. 4 has decided his appeal
in a particular manner. Therefore,
the application filed by the petitioner
was maintainable. Rejection of the
application by the Respondent No. 1 and
Appellate authorities rendered the
petitioner remediless. Petitioner vide
application dated 15.11.2006 had asked
4
as under what circumstances the
Respondent No.4 ignored the written
arguments and additional written
arguments, as the ignorance of the same
tantamount to judicial dishonesty, the
Respondent No.4 omitted to examine
the fabricated documents filed by the
plaintiff; and for what reason the
respondent no.4 omitted to examine the
documents filed by the petitioner.
Similar information had been sought on
other points.
5. At the outset, it must be noted
that the petitioner has not challenged
the order passed by the Respondent No.
4. Instead, he had filed the
application under Section 6 of the RTI
Act to know why and for what
reasons Respondent No. 4 had come to a
particular conclusion which was
against the petitioner. The nature of
the questions posed in the application
was to the effect why and for what
reason Respondent No. 4 omitted to
examine certain documents and why he
came to such a conclusion.
Altogether, the petitioner had sought
answers for about ten questions raised
in his application and most of the
questions were to the effect as to why
Respondent No. 4 had ignored certain
documents and why he had not taken
note of certain arguments advanced by
the petitioner's counsel.
5
6. Under the RTI Act "information"
is defined under Section 2(f) which
provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including
records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press
releases,
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition
shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can
get any
information which is already in existence and accessible to the
public authority
under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is
entitled to get
copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he
cannot ask for
any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars,
orders, etc. have
been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial
decisions. A
judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If
any party feels
aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the
remedy available
to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of
appeal or by
revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can
be allowed to
seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had
come to a
particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain
later on for what
reasons he had come to such a conclusion.
6
7. Moreover, in the instant case,
the petitioner submitted his application
under Section 6 of the RTI Act
before the Administrative Officer-cum-
Assistant State Public Information
Officer seeking information in respect of
the questions raised in his
application. However, the Public Information
Officer is not supposed to have any
material which is not before him; or any
information he could have obtained
under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI
Act, an applicant is entitled to get
only such information which can be
accessed by the "public
authority" under any other law for the time being in
force. The answers sought by the
petitioner in the application could not have
been with the public authority nor
could he have had access to this
information and Respondent No. 4 was
not obliged to give any reasons as to
why he had taken such a decision in
the matter which was before him. A
judge cannot be expected to give
reasons other than those that have been
enumerated in the judgment or order.
The application filed by the petitioner
before the public authority is per
se illegal and unwarranted. A judicial
officer is entitled to get
protection and the object of the same is not to protect
malicious or corrupt judges, but to
protect the public from the dangers to
which the administration of justice
would be exposed if the concerned
judicial officers were subject to
inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with
those whom their decisions might
offend. If anything is done contrary to
7
this, it would certainly affect the
independence of the judiciary. A judge
should be free to make independent
decisions.
8. As the petitioner has misused the
provisions of the RTI Act, the High
Court had rightly dismissed the writ
petition.
9. In view of the above, the Special
Leave Petition is dismissed
accordingly.
...............................CJI.
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
..................................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
New Delhi,
January 4, 2010
Labels---Judicial Officers Protection Act 1850
No comments:
Post a Comment