Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Vansh Sharad Gupta on 24 May, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4761/2016 & CM Appls. 19862-19864/2016
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Adv. for Mr.
Ruchir Mishra, Advs.
versus
VANSH SHARAD GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: None
% Date of Decision : 24th May, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral)
1. Even at the pass-over stage, a second pass over is sought. Since,
that is not the practice of this Court, this Court has no other option but
to proceed ahead with the matter.
2. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 04th November, 2015 whereby the
Central Information Commission (for short 'CIC') has directed the
petitioner to upload all the latest amended bare Acts and to examine
the functionality of its e-mail ID and develop an appropriate RTI
filing mechanism. The CIC has also directed the petitioner to pay
Rs.10,000/- under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act to the library of
National Law School of India University, Bangaluru. The relevant
portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. Needless to say that a duty upon the state to
inform citizens about the Law as and when it was made
and the citizens also have right to know of the Law. If
is impossible for any Government to expect obedience
to their Law without informing the people in legible
form. It is more difficult especially when the text of
Law is not available in easy accessible format. It will
result in two major problems, (1) People will be kept in
dark about their Laws, (2) Private Publishers will
exploit this in-access to Law to make money by
publishing updating Acts as their copyrighted work. It
is surprising that the Ministry has not used the
Information technology to provide access to text of
law.
7. The law and enactments are in public domain and
none can claim copyright in the law. Apart from this
general right to know, RTI Act has offered a specific
and enforceable right to information. Section 4
mandates the Ministry of Law to place the texts of
enactments. It is the duty of Legislative Department to
provide information about access of every updated
enactment. It is not just an recommended obligation
under Section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act, but a constitutional
mandate, a legal necessity, and an essential
requirement for peace. It is not possible to imagine
'enactment' becoming secret because of this ambiguity
and non-legibility.
xxx xxx xxx
9. The Commission records its appreciation for Mr.
Vansh Sharad Gupta. Although he filed his RTI
application in 2012 when he was a 2nd year student, his
complaint has reached this Commission for hearing
10.9.2015. Even though the information sought by him
will be irrelevant due to delay, the issue raised by him
is significant not only for law students like him but also
for common citizens. Needless to say that in the
absence of access to law there would be no access to
justice.
xxx xxx xxx
11. It is the minimum responsibility of state to
provide updated information about amendments, which
will go in long way in helping people. The access to
law is not just a requirement of Law student and law
researchers, but a necessity of all citizens. For
instance, the Parliament by the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013, has amended section 100 of
Indian Penal Code, which provide a right of private
defence of body even to the extent of causing death in
case of acid attack. Many men or women are not even
aware of self defence right that they can even kill
assailant if the later is attacking to kill, rape or throw
acid, or cause grievous hurt etc.
Decision:
11. The Commission directs the respondent
authority, Legislative Department to inform the
complainant and the Commission as to what action has
been taken including details of the programme of
updation, the possible date of its completion,
expenditure involved, personnel employed etc. The
Commission also recommends the department to
recognise urgency and significance of the issue,
expedite the process, allocate more fund to employ
more personnel and complete the process of updation
as soon as possible.
12. The Commission also directs the respondent
authority to examine the functionality of the email ID
in view of the Complainant's claim that most of the
email ID have failed. The Legislative Department also
should have perfect RTI filing system and answer
mechanism.
13. For the failures of the above, the Commission,
exercising its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of RTI
Act, directs the respondent public authority to pay
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as a token
compensation to the library of the National Law
School of India University, Bangaluru, for causing loss
of time of several law students, more specifically of the
appellant, not providing easy access to email, or not
making email ids easily available, delaying the
information etc, within one month."
3. In the present writ petition, it has been averred that the
respondent never filed an RTI application in the prescribed form and
the requisite fee. It is also stated that the respondent did not file the
first appeal and hence the second appeal could not have been
entertained by the CIC.
4. This Court is not an appellate Court of the CIC. Technical and
procedural arguments cannot be allowed to come in the way of
substantial justice. The directions given by the CIC in the impugned
order are not only fair and reasonable but also promote the concept of
rule of law. It is unfortunate that the petitioner did not take the
initiative on its own to upload the latest amended bare Acts.
5. Public can be expected to follow the law only if law is easily
accessible 'at the click of a button'. In fact, as rightly pointed out by
the CIC, the RTI Act itself mandates the Government to place the
texts of enactments in public domain.
6. This Court also take judicial notice of the fact that in
challenging the imposition of costs of Rs.10,000/-, the Government of
India would have spent more money in filing the present writ petition.
Consequently, this Court is of the view that the costs of Rs.10,000/-
which was directed to be paid by the CIC, should be recovered from
the salary of the Government officials who authorized the filing of the
present writ petition.
7. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the present writ
petition stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 24, 2016
NG
