AHMEDABAD: The chief information commissioner (CIC) D Rajagopalan has asked the Gujarat high court to furnish information under the Right to Information Act pertaining to its system for monitoring the lower judiciary.

The commission ordered so after the HC had refused to part with the information on the grounds that it wasn't bound to reveal these details under the information laws.

The applicant, Kalpeshkumar Gupta, filed a query under the RTI Act on June 22, 2012, asking the public information officer of the high court for details of the monitoring system on issues like status of pending cases, periodicity and use of information technology in monitoring. The PIO, as well as the appellate authority, had said that this information didn't fall within the definition of information under the RTI Act.

Gupta moved the state information commission in August 2012. The CIC said the applicant wanted to know about the monitoring system and whether IT is effectively used by the higher judiciary to monitor the subordinate courts. He further noted, "The commission feels that such information is normally covered under Section 4 of the RTI Act and made part of the proactive disclosure of the Gujarat high court, so that the applicants know about the functioning of the high court and monitoring of subordinate courts. The commission, therefore, feels that the information sought by the appellant needs to be given by the PIO within 30 days, free of cost, as per 7(6) of the RTI Act."

This is not the first time that the HC has been asked to furnish information. Last year, the CIC asked the high court not to interpret RTI laws on its own and just implement them. In response to an appeal by social activist Indukumar Jani, the CIC asked the HC to furnish information on provisions of leave and days of judicial work undertaken by HC judges. The HC had refused the information by citing the law, but the CIC intervened and said, "Gujarat high court has been entitled to form rules under the RTI Act, which is obviously for the purpose of better implementation of the law. The high court does not have power to take any decision about interpretation of the section mentioned in the Act."

