As an Indian citizen, you have the right to know about the functioning of government and public institutions. This includes understanding potential conflicts of interest, especially within the judiciary. This case explores whether information about relatives of judges practicing in the same courts can be accessed through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. While the outcome might seem unfavorable, it highlights crucial aspects of what information is accessible and how public authorities are expected to respond to RTI queries.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this RTI case, an applicant was interested in statistics concerning the relatives of judges serving in the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Specifically, the applicant requested a list of statistics, prepared Law Ministry, detailing the particulars of blood relatives (such as sons, daughters, and other close family members) of lawyers who practice in the same courts where their relatives hold positions as incumbent Judges. This kind of information could shed light on potential nepotism or perceived biases within the judicial system.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Department of Justice responded to the RTI application that the department does not maintain any such statistics. Consequently, they informed the applicant that the requested information could not be furnished. This is a common response when the authority claims the information is not on record.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent (representing the Department of Justice) presented further details. They explained that at the time of appointing Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, the application form includes a column that asks for information regarding close relatives practicing in the respective courts. However, they emphasized that after a Judge’s appointment, there is no provision or mechanism to collect or maintain such information at any subsequent stage. This essentially meant that while the initial application might capture this data, it isn’t systematically updated or compiled thereafter for public access.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) meticulously reviewed the documents presented. The Commission’s decision was based on a fundamental principle of the RTI Act: information can only be provided if it is held, possessed, or maintained public authority. In this instance, the CIC found that the respondent department did not maintain the specific statistics requested appellant. Therefore, the Commission had no choice but to reject the appeal, concluding that the information sought was not on record with the public authority. This decision underscores that the RTI Act compels disclosure of existing information, not the creation of new records or the gathering of data that isn’t already collected.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Information Must Be Maintained: The most critical takeaway is that you can only obtain information that a public authority actually holds or maintains. If the information doesn’t exist in their records, even the CIC cannot direct them to create it.
- Lesson 2: Understand the Scope of Records: Before filing an RTI, try to understand what kind of records a particular department typically keeps. This case shows that while initial appointment forms might contain certain data, ongoing maintenance of that data for public scrutiny might not be a statutory requirement.
- Lesson 3: PIO’s Duty is to Disclose Existing Information: A PIO’s responsibility under Section 7 of the RTI Act is to provide information that is held under the control of the public authority. They are not obligated to conduct investigations or compile information that is not readily available.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or authority is most likely to hold the information you seek. For judicial appointments, it would typically be the Department of Justice or the relevant administrative wing of the Supreme Court/High Court.
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State your request precisely. Be specific about the information you need, the time period, and the format, if any.
- Pay the Application Fee: Submit the prescribed fee along with your application.
- Monitor the Response: If you don’t receive a response within the stipulated 30 days (as per Section 7 of the RTI Act), or if the response is unsatisfactory, you can file a first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide any statistics maintained department regarding the number of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court/High Courts whose close blood relatives are currently serving as Judges in the same court, for the period [specify period].”
Conclusion
While this particular RTI application did not yield the desired statistics, it serves as an important reminder of the practical limitations of the RTI Act. The Act is a powerful tool for transparency, but it operates within the framework of existing records. Understanding these nuances will help you file more effective RTI applications and utilize your right to information judiciously. If you believe a public authority is wrongly claiming to not maintain information, pursuing first and second appeals to the appellate authority and the CIC respectively is the way forward.
