November 22, 2017
CIC had directing the Apex Court to answer the queries of litigant R S Misra as to why his SLP was dismissed.
The Delhi HC has held that the Right To Information (RTI) Act wouldn’t override the Supreme Court Rules (SCR) when it comes to dissemination of info.
Justice Manmohan observed that the RTI Act can’t be resorted to in case the info. sought for is related to the judicial function, which can be challenged by way of any legal proceeding.
“The SCR would be applicable with regard to the judicial functioning of the Apex Court. Whereas for the administrative functioning of Supreme Court, RTI Act would be applicable & information could be provided under it.”
“The dissemination of info. under the SCR is part of judicial function, exercise of which can’t be taken away by any statute. It’s settled legal position that the legislature isn’t competent to take away judicial powers of the Court by statutory prohibition,” the Court said.
The Court’s order came on a plea by the Supreme Court through its Registrar, who had challenged an May 2011 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the SC to answer the queries of litigant R. S. Misra as to why his SLP was dismissed.
While setting aside the CIC order, the Delhi High Court also deprecated the applicant’s conduct of writing letter to Supreme Court Judges asking why his SLP, regarding termination of his services as a teacher, was dismissed.
R S Misra was holding the post of Postgraduate Chemistry Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya & his services were terminated by the Commissioner of KVS under Article 81(b) of the Education Code in November 2003.
He had challenged the termination of the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) which was dismissed. His petition in the HC & appeal in the SC also failed. His review petitions were also dismissed.
Thereafter, the teacher sought information under the RTI , as to why his SLP had been dismissed, while contending that the same had been decided against the “Principles of Natural Justice”.
On not receiving the info. sought, he had moved the CIC which had directed the apex court’s public information officer to answer the queries raised by him.
Setting aside the CIC order, the high court said “a judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him.
A Judge can’t be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the Judgement or order.
If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgement, the remedy available is to challenge the same by a legally permissible mode.
“No litigant can be allowed to seek info. through an RTI application on the administrative side as to why & for what reasons the Judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge isn’t bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion”.
Source - ptinews.com