Rajesh Das v. Cpio

File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000068 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Date of hearing Date of decision

1 October 2012

1 October 2012 Name of the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Das, C/o. D N Lenko, CCC(E)/DPS, CKP Division, SE Rly. Est Singbhum, Jharkhand 833 212. Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:

(i) Smt. Smita Vats Sharma, CPIO

(ii) Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra

2. The Appellant was present in the Chaibasa studio the NIC while the Respondents were present in our chamber. We had their submissions.

3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had wanted the CPIO to interpret the meaning of several legal expressions. The CPIO had informed him that it was not her duty to provide any such opinion or interpretation under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the decision of the CIC/SM/A/2012/000068 CPIO.

4. The Appellant submitted that he had felt that the CPIO should provide him such information and, therefore, had raised those queries. The Appellant had wanted to know the implication of such expressions as judicial process, quasijudicial process, witness etc and also about Supreme Court judgements which dealt with such subjects. None of these queries would amount to seeking information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CPIO can provide only that information which already exists in material form, that is, in the Supreme Court records. She cannot create new records in the form of her personal interpretation of various legal expressions. In any case, the role of the Supreme Court does not extend to providing advice or opinion to individual citizens to clarify their doubts on various legal expressions. The Appellant is best advised to consult either a legal expert or a Law Dictionary or both to find out about the connotation of all such expressions.

5. There is no merit in this appeal. It is disposed off accordingly.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000068