Delhi High Court Infowire |
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice B.D.Ahmed and Justice Veena Birbal today questioned the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations 2007 before a visiting Commonwealth delegation of legal luminaries attending the inauguration of the court’s new arbitration centre. The case was between a Delhi resident Er. Sarbajit Roy and the.Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The court accepting the stand of CIC’s standing counsel equatng the Information Commissioners to Supreme Court judges has decreed that all Central RTI appeals must now be heard by all 10 Information Commissions sitting jointly like the US Supreme Court..
In 2005 the complainant Er.Sarbajit Roy had moved India’s first RTI case to India’ FoI watchdog the Central Information Commission (CIC) complaining that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had failed to comply with proactive disclosure mandated under new India’s Right to Information Act 2005.
4 years later on 22.09.2009 a twin bench of Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and Information Commissioner M.L.Sharma found Roy’s allegations to be true and constituted a 3 member committee to go into all aspect of servicing RTI Act throughout the DDA expeditiously. Roy challenging the appointment of the committee cited the Government of India’s legal opinion to CIC for there to be no provision in law for CIC to form benches or committees to decide complaints. The DDA then approached the High Court and obtained a stay against all proceeding in Roy’s complaint.
The Court heard Er.Roy, standing senior counsel for CIC Prof. K.K.Nigam and standing counsel for DDA Adv. Ajay Verma at length over 2 days. The Court was astounded to learn that the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007 promulgated by CIC which permits setting up of benches and inquiry committees had never been notified in the gazette to have any legal effect. The Court while striking down the Regulations also interpreted section 12(4) of the RTI Act to be a “provision restricting the CIC’s autonomy” and not as an enabling provision to frame notifications. Noting that the Department of Personnel (DOPT) had consistently refused to notify the CIC’s wide roving regulations, the Court remarked “what was not done by Rules cannot now enter through the backdoor of these illegal regulations”.
Responding to the decision Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said “It is highly impractical to expect the entire bench to hear every case together especially in the state commissions. We have asked them to provide an alternative, a system in place so that their demand could be considered”.
CPI Politburo leader Brinda Karat also hit out at the government over the Government demand to force CIC to only sit as a Full Bench in Parliament. “Who is the DoPT to make such demands, the CIC is an independent body. The government has no business getting involved in this.”
There are now concerns that attempts by the government to restrict the role of the CIC will lead to a massive delay in disposing cases. Already 26,000 cases are awaiting hearing at CIC with an 18 month backlog. The wait has just got longer.
# # #
Delhi High Court Infowire, an online website for advocates reporting daily hearings from Delhi High Court contributed by advocates who appeared
”
All Central RTI appeals will henceforth be heard by all 10 Information Commissions sitting jointly.
In 2005 the complainant Er.Sarbajit Roy had moved India’s first RTI case to India’ FoI watchdog the Central Information Commission (CIC) complaining that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had failed to comply with proactive disclosure mandated under new India’s Right to Information Act 2005.
4 years later on 22.09.2009 a twin bench of Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and Information Commissioner M.L.Sharma found Roy’s allegations to be true and constituted a 3 member committee to go into all aspect of servicing RTI Act throughout the DDA expeditiously. Roy challenging the appointment of the committee cited the Government of India’s legal opinion to CIC for there to be no provision in law for CIC to form benches or committees to decide complaints. The DDA then approached the High Court and obtained a stay against all proceeding in Roy’s complaint.
The Court heard Er.Roy, standing senior counsel for CIC Prof. K.K.Nigam and standing counsel for DDA Adv. Ajay Verma at length over 2 days. The Court was astounded to learn that the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007 promulgated by CIC which permits setting up of benches and inquiry committees had never been notified in the gazette to have any legal effect. The Court while striking down the Regulations also interpreted section 12(4) of the RTI Act to be a “provision restricting the CIC’s autonomy” and not as an enabling provision to frame notifications. Noting that the Department of Personnel (DOPT) had consistently refused to notify the CIC’s wide roving regulations, the Court remarked “what was not done by Rules cannot now enter through the backdoor of these illegal regulations”.
Responding to the decision Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said “It is highly impractical to expect the entire bench to hear every case together especially in the state commissions. We have asked them to provide an alternative, a system in place so that their demand could be considered”.
CPI Politburo leader Brinda Karat also hit out at the government over the Government demand to force CIC to only sit as a Full Bench in Parliament. “Who is the DoPT to make such demands, the CIC is an independent body. The government has no business getting involved in this.”
There are now concerns that attempts by the government to restrict the role of the CIC will lead to a massive delay in disposing cases. Already 26,000 cases are awaiting hearing at CIC with an 18 month backlog. The wait has just got longer.
| « E. D. Drugs More Accessible Than H1N1 Drugs | The Criminalization Of Drugs And Alcohol » |
