NEW DELHI, May 31: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has stepped in after an applicant seeking nationwide details on judicial court fee collections received an incomplete response despite the RTI application being routed through multiple government departments and public sector institutions.
The case concerns a request for comprehensive information on court fee collections across the country, including revenue generated through e-court fee systems, state-wise annual collections since June 2014, and details regarding the utilisation of the funds collected through judicial fees.
Initially submitted to the Department of Legal Affairs under the Ministry of Law and Justice, the application was transferred successively to the Department of Financial Services (DFS), the Institutional Finance-I Division, the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited (IFCI), and later to the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (SHCIL).
During the processing of the request, officials in the Institutional Finance-I Division stated that the required information was not maintained by their office and forwarded the matter to IFCI. IFCI subsequently concluded that the queries were more closely related to SHCIL and transferred the application accordingly.
In response, SHCIL supplied data related to e-court fee collections from 16 States and Union Territories where it manages digital court fee services. However, the organisation indicated that certain portions of the request, including cumulative collections since June 2014 and details regarding expenditure or utilisation of the funds, did not fall within its scope of responsibility.
At the hearing before the Commission, the applicant argued that the information supplied remained partial and failed to address key aspects of the request. Particular concern was raised regarding the absence of details on how court fee revenues were being utilised, a subject the applicant maintained should be available with the Ministry of Law and Justice.
After examining the matter, the Commission observed that the application had moved through several public authorities without a complete and coordinated response being provided. The CIC noted that while SHCIL furnished limited information relating to fee collections in jurisdictions where it operates, it did not possess records concerning the utilisation of the collected funds.
Taking note of submissions made during the proceedings, the Commission directed SHCIL’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to review the response and issue a revised reply on the pending aspects of the application wherever applicable.
The CIC also expressed concern over the handling of the request by the Department of Legal Affairs. A show-cause notice was issued to the department’s CPIO seeking an explanation for transferring the entire application to another authority without adequately examining which portions of the information could have been supplied directly. The notice additionally referred to the officer’s absence during the hearing without prior communication to the Commission.
In a separate development, the Commission issued another show-cause notice to the First Appellate Authority within the Ministry of Law and Justice for allegedly failing to respond to a representation submitted by the applicant in October 2024.
The order highlights the Commission’s emphasis on accountability and proper compliance with the Right to Information Act, particularly in cases involving public financial records and the movement of applications between multiple authorities. The matter will now proceed further based on the explanations submitted by the concerned officials and the revised information expected from SHCIL.