Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 2022 - HC - Indian LawsTermination from the post of Postgraduate Teacher (Chemistry) in KVS - sexual harassment - constitutional validity of Article 81(b) of Education Code of KVS - Validity of judicial orders - questioning judicial orders by either filing letters on the administrative side or applications under the RTI Act - HELD THAT:- From the facts on record, it is apparent that letters had been written by the respondent to the Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court when they were seized of the respondent's case in their judicial capacity - It seems strange to this Court that despite the respondent challenging the impugned termination order and allegations of sexual harassment by way of legal proceedings, he not only re-agitated the same issues but also questioned the judicial orders by either filing letters on the administrative side or applications under the RTI Act. In fact, the respondent even sought quashing of Article 81(b) of Education Code of KVS as unconstitutional by way of applications on the administrative side and wanted to know the outcome of such applications under RTI Act! This is all the more unusual as the respondent is well conversant with the judicial process inasmuch as he has filed more than double digit judicial proceedings before various forums and courts till date. This Court is of the view that where there is no information to be given or the applicant is seeking non-existent information or where the query is inherently absurd or bordering on contempt, like in the present case, the CIC should not have directed the petitioner to supply information and that too without considering whether the queries raised were maintainable under the RTI Act. Since both the RTI Act, 2005 and the SCR aim at dissemination of information, there is no inherent inconsistency, other than the procedural inconsistency at the highest between the RTI Act and the SCR. In the present case, maintaining two parallel machinery: one under SCR and the other under the RTI Act, would clearly lead to duplication of work and unnecessary expenditure, in turn leading to clear wastage of human resources as well as public funds. Also, request for hard copies of information (as contemplated under Section 7 of the RTI Act) in respect of those information which are already available and accessible in the public domain, under the mechanism contemplated under the SCR, will further lead to unnecessary diversion of resources and conflict with other public interest which includes optimal use of limited fiscal resources. The RTI Act does not provide for an appeal against a Supreme Court judgment/order that has attained finality. It is clarified that queries under the RTI Act would be maintainable to elicit information like how many leaves a Hon’ble Judge takes or with regard to administrative decision an Hon’ble Judge takes; but no query shall lie with regard to a judicial decision/function. Petition allowed.
|