Table of Contents
Supreme Court of India RTI Rules
Right to Information Act, 2005
This Registry for the present is following the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) which is also available on the website of the Supreme Court of India.
Central Public Information Officer
Mr. Ajay Agrawal
Additional Registrar
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Tel. No.23073580/ Fax No.23384533
e-mail:supremecourt@nic.in
Transparency Officer for Supreme Court
Mr. Surajit Dey
Registrar
Transparency Officer
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Tel. No.23385265/ Fax No.23384533
e-mail:supremecourt@nic.in
First Appellate Authority
Shri M.K. Hanjura
Registrar
First Appellate Authority
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Tel. No.23385265/ Fax No.23384533
e-mail:supremecourt@nic.in
Fees for obtaining Information
Rs.10/- either in cash or by way of Indian Postal Order or by Money Order or Demand Draft drawn in favour of Registrar/Accounts Officer, Supreme Court of India New Delhi.
<blockquote>Note : Court fee and cheques are not acceptable as the same are not valid mode as per rules.</blockquote>
Downloads
<html>
<script async src=“pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js”></script>
<ins class=“adsbygoogle”
style=“display:block; text-align:center;”
data-ad-layout=“in-article”
data-ad-format=“fluid”
data-ad-client=“ca-pub-3082882621726443”
data-ad-slot=“9529004960”></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>
</html>
- The Supreme Court Rules 1966
- RTI Act in Hindi
===== External Links =====
- Compliance under Section 4(1)(b) of Right to Information Act, 2005
- For Search and Downloading of Judgments.
- For Search and Downloading of Daily Orders/Proceedings & Case Status i.e., "COURTNIC"
- PIL Guidelines.
- Supreme Court of India, Practice & Procedure, 'A Handbook of Information'.
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
- Institution, Disposal and Pendency of Cases.
===== Analysis of Supreme Court RTI Rules and Procedure =====
- the applicant who sought this information in 2009 had to wait until 2014 just to get the Delhi High Court to rule that the SC may provide the information. Read the decision here!
- On 10th November 2007, Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed an RTI request with the SC asking for information concerning declaration of assets by Supreme Court Judges, among other things. The PIO denied the request, claiming he did not hold the information. Agrawal filed a first appeal asking that his application may be transferred to the Public Authority holding the information. The Registrar asked the PIO to re-consider the request, but he denied the information again. Agrawal moved the Central Information Commission (CIC) which in January 2009, asked the PIO to furnish the information [PDF].The SC challenged this order twice before the Delhi High Court (HC) even as it made some information about judges’ assets public on its website, but the HC upheld the CIC’s ruling. Read the decision here!
- On 20th February 2008, Satnam Singh, a prisoner in Ludhiana’s Central Jail sent a Right to Information (RTI) request to the Supreme Court (SC) asking for a copy of its guidelines on police reforms. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the SC denied the request and referred Singh to the SC website. Singh filed a first appeal pointing out that as a prisoner, he had no access to a computer, and that, by not sending him the information, the SC was denying him his right. Hearing the appeal, the Registrar, SC too denied the request, now asking him to apply under the Supreme Court Rules 1966, instead of the RTI Act.
- The Supreme Court Rules 1966 Rule XII 
- An Analysis of the RTI Rules of the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court and the Subordinate Courts
- The Commission respectfully disagrees with the decision of the then Chief Information Commissioner that the PIO, Supreme Court may choose to deny the information sought under the RTI Act and ask an applicant to apply for information under Order XII of the SC Rules.Supreme Court cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
- The Supreme Court Still Adamantly Refuses to Yield to RTI