Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The central information commissioner dismissed a plea regarding non-disclosure of information in about 38 petitions from the supreme court on the aadhar card matter. The commission said that the landmark judgment delivered in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India comprised of a collective decision of the bench. Individual prayers and petitions have not been discussed per se and thus there is no information available on record and thus it cannot be provided.
The appeal has been filed by Anupam Saraph requesting disclosure of information through an RTI before the apex court. It sought a copy of the prayers before the court in each of the 38 petitions. Further, the decision was taken by the court in the matter and the parties who have been directed to take action(s) based on the decision of the court. In case any prayer remained unanswered then the recourse available to each of the parties. The central public information officer said that the original copy of the judgment or document can be made available by writing an application. It can also be accessed by the website of the supreme court of law journals. Further, it was contended by the CPIO that it was not under their jurisdiction to provide for a reasonable interpretation of the law or render any explanation of the court's judgment. The petitioner also contended that under the ambit of section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d), 4(2) and 4(3) of the RTI Act the information should be made available on the official website of the court but it is not and no provision regarding the same has been made.
However, CIC Y. K. Sinha, observed thus, in this regard: "Section 4 lays down mandates for the public authority to adhere to for suo motu disclosure of information, while only Section 6 of the RTI Act enables citizens to enquire about the information. The scope of the various sections of law is laid down and cannot be used interchangeably. Thus the Appellant's contention that he had sought information under Section 4 of the RTI Act is legally flawed and not maintainable under the RTI Act because information can be sought only under provisions of Section 6 of the Act, even if to enforce or challenge action or inaction of the public authority, as envisaged under Section 4 of the RTI Act." In addition to this, the commissioner further noted that there is a 1448 page decision made available that covers all aspects.
86540
103860
630
114
59824