RTI Act not to apply to Tribunals and Courts - CIC
In a landmark decision, the Central Information commission has ruled that the RTI Act cannot be used to challenge the judicial decision of a Tribunal. The RTI Act is often used to settle personal scores than to get information. We understand that there was a request under RTI to give information about the private trips made in official car by the President of a Tribunal!
Issues before the CIC were:
1. Whether this Commission, under the Right to Information Act, can order the ITAT to disclose information which that Tribunal has decided not to disclose under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time and rules made thereunder?
2. Whether the RTI Act applies to a judicial proceeding and, if so, does it override the existing law concerning dissemination of information in respect of a judicial proceeding?
3. Whether the information, which the respondents say are prohibited under the Income Tax Act can be given under the Right to Information Act?
The Commission observed,
1. In the instant case, the appellant has asked for a copy of the daily proceedings minutes maintained by the members of the Bench tried by the ITAT in appeal case No.ITA 567/Del/05. The CPIO in the instant case has replied that the daily minutes maintained by the members of the Bench are a part of the judicial proceedings and is meant only for the use of the members of the Tribunal. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Tribunal are judicial.
2. Apparently, all judicial proceedings are conducted in open and transparency is the hallmark in case of all such proceedings. There is no element of secrecy whatsoever. But at the same time, it has to be borne in mind that the judiciary is independent and all judicial authorities including all courts and tribunals must work independently and without any interference insofar as their judicial work is concerned. The independence of a judicial authority is all pervasive and any amount of interference is neither desirable nor should ever be encouraged in any manner.
3. The appellant in the instant case wanted the minutes of the proceedings maintained by the learned members of the Tribunal which can only be the notes prepared by them while conducting the hearing or otherwise.
4. Any intrusion in regard to the judicial work even under the Right to Information Act is unnecessary. We are satisfied that at the level of appellate authority the appellant agreed not to press for this request.
5. The position generally being so, in the present case, the question is when the power of disclosure of certain information is vested exclusively in a properly constituted judicial body, such as the ITAT, should the disclosure of the same information be made a subject to be determined under the RTI Act. In our view, it is not so. The independence of the judicial authority flows from the discretion given to that authority to take all decisions in matters properly brought within the purview of that authority. For example, the ITAT, as a judicial body, is also entrusted with the power to authorize disclosure or non-disclosure of a given set of information such as the information asked for by the appellant in the present appeal. In our understanding, it should not be necessary to separate the function of disclosure of information from the general function of that judicial body. In other words, it would not be appropriate for the Commission or any entity functioning as part of the RTI-regime, to pronounce on the disclosure of a given set of information, if it is found that under another law (such as the Income Tax Act), this disclosure function is exercisable as part of the judicial function by a judicial authority, such as the ITAT.
6. It is our conclusion, therefore, that given that a judicial authority must function with total independence and freedom, should it be found that an action initiated under the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of that judicial body, the Commission will not authorize the use of the RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement. Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act is quite clear, which gives a total discretion to the court or the tribunal to decide as to what should be published. An information seeker should, therefore, approach the concerned court or the tribunal if he intends to have some information concerning a judicial proceeding and it is for the concerned court or the tribunal to take a decision in the matter as to whether the information requested is concerning judicial proceedings either pending before it or decided by it can be given or not.
DECISION:
1. Section 4(1) (d) does not apply to a judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or a Tribunal as it refers only to administrative and quasi-judicial decisions of public authorities.
2. The non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the Right to Information Act does not, repeal or substitute any pre-existing law including the provisions of the Income Tax Act concerning dissemination of information.
3. The appellant cannot take recourse to the RTI Act to challenge a judicial decision regarding disclosure of a given set of information, which properly belonged to the jurisdiction of that judicial authority. If the appellant is aggrieved with the decision of the ITAT, the remedy lies elsewhere.
4. It is reiterated and made clear that the RTI Act is not intended to come into conflict with a judicial decision regarding disclosure of information. Section 8(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 makes it very clear that the information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal cannot be disclosed as any such disclosure is also within the exemption clause.