Date of Hearing : 21.05.2025 Date of Decision : 21.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.07.2024 PIO replied on : 07.08.2024 First Appeal filed on : 07.08.2024 First Appellate Order on : 04.09.2024 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.11.2024
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Please provide details of the total fines (penalties) collected for violations of Section 4, Section 6(a) and Section 6(b) of the aforementioned Act within the premises of the Supreme Court of India and each High Court in India in the last five years (2019-2023), segregated for smoking and smokeless forms of tobacco use.
2. Please provide the names, designations, and contact details of the concerned officers within the Supreme Court of India and each High Court to whom the public can lodge complaints regarding violations of the Act and Rules, particularly related to smoking and smokeless tobacco use within the court premises.
3. Please provide the total number of complaints received by the concerned authorities within the Supreme Court of India and each High Court regarding violations of the Act and Rules in the last five years (2019-2023), specifically related to smoking and smokeless tobacco use within the court premises.
4. Please provide details of any workshops, awareness campaigns, or educational programs conducted by the concerned authorities within the Supreme Court of India and each High Court to educate the court staff, lawyers, and visitors about the provisions of the Act and Rules, and the harmful effects of both smoking and smokeless tobacco use, in the last five years (2019-2023).
5. Please provide information on any designated smoking areas within the Supreme Court and High Court premises, if any, and the measures taken to ensure these areas comply with the rules specified in the Act. Etc." 1 / 4
1
Page 2 of 3
The CPIO, Addl. Registrar vide letter dated 07.08.2024 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 & 3: Nil Point No.2: The name, designation and contact details of the concerned officers within the Supreme Court of India to whom the public can lodge complaints:
Name: Rakesh Sharma, Designation: Additional Registrar, Room No.: Reception Office, Supreme Court of India, Contact No.:011-23115667 Point No.4, 9 & 10: The information is not maintained in the manner as sought for by you.
Point No.5: The premises of the Supreme Court of India is Tobacco Free Zone and smoking is not permitted.
Point No.6 & 7: Signage along with guidelines are installed across the Supreme Court premises at all visible and accessible locations as well as on Supreme Court website viz. https://www.sci.gov.in/ (link: https://www.sci.gov.in/all-updates) containing the information regarding the person to be contacted for any violation. Point No.8: Rules are already part of the Act and rest of the information is already available in public domain as mentioned in reply to Point No.6 & 7." Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2024. The FAA, Registrar vide order dated 04.09.2024 held as under:-
"8) On examining the queries and the reply sent by CPIO, I am of the considered opinion that CPIO has appropriately answered the queries raised by the appellant.
The point wise reply on queries has been given by CPIO and information as is available and maintained has been furnished. Further, CPIO rightly advised to appellant to seek information relating to other public authorities by moving application before the concerned authorities.
9) The reply sent by CPIO is appropriate and does not require any further addition or further elaboration. There appears no error or illegality in the same. Hence, no interference is called for.
10) Viewed in the context of what has been stated above, there appears no substance and/or merit in the appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, the same is dismissed."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present
Respondent: Smt. Himani Sarad - Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court with Shri Chandra Kant Sharma, Advocate were present during hearing.
The Appellant reiterated his contentions as already stated hereinabove. The Respondent present during hearing contended that complete information as available in the existing records had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the mandate of the RTI Act.
2 / 4
2
Page 3 of 3 Decision
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the Respondent, the Commission notes that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and available on records has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Considering the fact that appropriate response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मखु्य सचूना आयकु्त) Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
3 / 4
3
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 14 4
4