Delhi High Court
The Registrar, Supreme Court Of ... vs R S Misra on 21 November, 2017
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the decision of the Central Information Commission (for short "CIC"), dated 11th May, 2011 passed in Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000237. The CIC vide the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (for short "CPIO") to answer the queries 1 to 7 raised by the said respondent in his application dated 20th April, 2010. The CIC also directed the CPIO to provide information pertaining to a judicial matter in which the respondent himself was a party, i.e. in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8219-8220 of 2010 and was represented by a lawyer.
73. Consequently, the SCR would be applicable with regard to the judicial functioning of the Supreme Court; whereas for the administrative functioning of the Supreme Court, the RTI Act would be applicable and information could be provided under it. The dissemination of information under the SCR is a part of judicial function, exercise of which cannot be taken away by any statute. It is settled legal position that the legislature is not competent to take away the judicial powers of the court by statutory prohibition. The legislature cannot make law to deprive the courts of their legitimate judicial functions conferred under the procedure established by law.
74. Also, the RTI Act does not provide for an appeal against a Supreme Court judgment/order that has attained finality. It is clarified that queries under the RTI Act would be maintainable to elicit information like how many leaves a Hon'ble Judge takes or with regard to administrative decision an Hon'ble Judge takes; but no query shall lie with regard to a judicial decision/function.
THE CIC BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER COULD NOT HAVE OVERRULED EARLIER DECISIONS OF OTHER COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE SAME STRENGTH