CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2010/000030 dated 28-1-2010
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 18
Appellant:
Shri Chanderkant J. Karira
Respondent:
High Court of Delhi
Complaint heard: 27.8.2010/15.9.2010
Decision announced : 28.09.2010
FACTS:
By a complaint of 28-12-2009 Shri C.J. Karira of Secunderabad, A.P. complained to this Commission with regard to public disclosure made by the High Court of Delhi u/s 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act as follows:
1. Vide powers vested in the Hon’ble Commission, under Sec 19 (8) of the RTI Act, to instruct the Delhi High Court, Allahabad, to secure compliance with provisions of the RTI Act, especially
suo motu disclosure u/s 4.
2. To instruct the Delhi High Court that suo-motu disclosures have to be displayed even for the subordinate courts which come under its jurisdiction.
3. To instruct Public Authority to immediately modify contents of its website vis-a-vis RTI Act and bring it into conformity of RTI Act by publishing information prescribed in Sec 4(1)(b)(i) to 4(1)()(xvii).
4. To pass any other orders as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.
Upon this the Commission issued notice to the High Court of Delhi, which through a letter of 6-8-2010 from PIO Shri P.K. Gupta submitted before us as follows:
“That most of the information as required under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is available on the official website of this Court i.e. www.delhihighcourt.nic.in.
However, a comprehensive reply to the complaint is required to be submitted to the Hon’ble Central Information Commission. It is, therefore, requested that the time for submitting the comments of this Court on the captioned complaint may be enlarged for a further period of four weeks.”
This was followed by an e-mail of 10-8-2010 from the Registry of this Commission to the PIO, Delhi High Court in which the latter were advised as follows:
“You may go ahead and submit the comments by 13th August, 2010. You may also like to send a copy of the comments to the applicant.”
Subsequently, we have received a detailed rejoinder to the PIO’s response from complainant Shri Karira as follows:
After going through the complete website of the High Court of Delhi, I would like to state the factual position of these disclosures:
|
Subsection
on
of Sec
4(1)(b)
|
Information
mandated
to be
disclosed
|
Information
actually
disclosed
on the
website
|
Remarks
|
|
(i)
|
The particulars of
its organization,
function and
duties;,
|
Disclosed in the Annual Report at
http://delhihighcourt.nic.i
n/annualreport_2007_20
08/Page-43%20to
%2050.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY:
Fully complied: 1
Partly complied: 6
Not complied: 10
As can be seen from the above table, even the information that has been partly disclosed is outdated- most of it pertains to the year 2007-08.”
Shri Karira has further gone on to quote from the ‘Explanation’ at the end of Section 4 which, in his view, obliges the public authority to disseminate this information through every means and not only through internet.
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 27-8-2010. The following are present.
Appellant (at NIC Studio, Hyderabad) Shri Chanderkant J. Karira
Respondent: Shri V. K. Mittal, PIO, Delhi High Court
Ms. Pratima Gupta, APIO, Delhi High Court
We have on record comments of appellant on a response received from respondent PIO, High Court of Delhi. However, there is no copy of the response to our complaint notice received from the High Court of Delhi. PIO Shri V. K. Mittal also requested that since a regular PIO is on leave, the hearing be adjourned preferably after 8-9-2010.
Complainant Shri C. J. Karira, while submitting that he had no objection to an adjournment, clarified that his comments were indeed submitted in response to the comments of the respondent received by him and do not constitute a written argument. He further invited our attention to the decision of this Commission in CIC/AT/A/2008/01137 dated 13th March 2009, which is as follows:-
“The matter was listed for hearing before Division Bench in view of decision taken by this Commission in its Weekly Meeting that all appeals and complaints filed against various High Courts should be heard by a Bench consisting of two Information Commissioners1.”
In this context appellant enquired whether the practice adopted, as emphasised above, has been discontinued. He was informed that this was taken recourse to as and when considered necessary. A copy of the response of the Delhi High Court through PIO Shri P. K. Gupta to the complaint notice has been obtained from respondent and placed on record. The issue before us is of somewhat wide ramification and felt better served by consideration in a larger bench. The hearing was, therefore, adjourned to 15-9-2010 at 4.00 p.m. to be heard in Division bench by Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner Shri Satyananda Mishra. The appeal was then heard by Division Bench through videoconference on 15-9-2010. The following are present.
Appellant (at NIC Studio, Hyderabad):
Shri C. J. Karira
Respondents (at NIC/CIC Studio, New Delhi):
Shri Rajiv Bansal, Nominated Counsel, Delhi High Court
Shri P. K. Gupta, JR. /PIO, Delhi High Court
Shri Sudhir Sachdeva, Sr. Judicial Assistant, Delhi High Court
Shri Dibyaranjan Gouda, Jr. Judicial Assistant, Delhi High Court
Learned Counsel for respondent Shri Rajiv Bansal submitted detailed written arguments which have been taken on record. Learned Counsel initiated his arguments with reference to the decision of Delhi High Court in W.P.( C) No. 12714/2009 “DDA Vs. CIC & Anr” dated 21.5.2010, in which the learned Division Bench has quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007. He therefore, argued quoting from Para 34 of the order of the Division Bench that the Central Information Commission had no authority to constitute Benches for hearing cases before it.
Notwithstanding the above arguments, Learned Council had come fully prepared to contest the contention of appellant Shri Karira in his rejoinder. Hence he has on his part countered the claim of appellant Shri Karira by submitting that only one sub-clause of Sec 4 (1) (b) had been only partly complied with, being the clause regarding the publication of the Annual Report, which will be so published when finalised, since this takes time to process. The compliance with the remaining mandate was claimed to be complete. For reasons explained against each of the responses given by appellant Shri Karira in his rejoinder, Shri Rajiv Bansal sought to rebut the contentions of complainant in the following statement:-
|
Subsection
on
of Sec
4(1)(b)
|
Information
mandated
to be
disclosed
|
Information
actually
disclosed
on the
website
|
Remarks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This statement is supported by a host of statements giving the following information:
1. Compliance of section 4 of the RTI Act.
2. Statement indicating the number of posts of the Establishment of High Court of Delhi.
3. Case flow chart.
4. Delhi High Court Staff Seniority Rules 1971.
5. Delhi High Court Establishment Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules 1972.
6. Schedule 1- number of permanent and temporary posts on the Establishment of High Court of Delhi.
7. Number of permanent and temporary posts of officials of the Establishment of High Court of Delhi.
8. Hon’ble Chief Justice’s order dated 1.10.2003.
9. Delhi High Court Officers and Staff, Salary, Leave Rules, Allowances and Pension Rules.
10. Pay scale of Delhi High Court Officers and Staff w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
Appellant Shri Karira on the other hand submitted that he had not yet seen the statement of Delhi High Court, a copy of which has been submitted to us. Without seeing the same he felt that it will not be possible for him to comment on the merit or de-merit of the response. He, however, submitted
that he had based his own critique on the norms for disclosure under section 4 (1) (b) as propounded by the Centre of Good Governance, Hyderabad, government’s principal advisory group on crafting of RTI documentation. He has especially invited the attention of this Commission to the explanation at the foot of section 4 which reads as follows:-
Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority
He, therefore, submitted that simply disclosure of the website is not adequate and that information requires to be disseminated through all the means listed in this explanation. Complainant Shri Karira also submitted that had the High Court any objection to the Division Bench hearing this matter, it should have raised this objection in the very first hearing.
DECISION NOTICE
The principal issue for decision before we go on to discussing the merits of this appeal is whether in light of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 12714/2009-DDA Vs. CIC & Anr. this Commission has the authority to constitute a Division Bench to hear this case. In this matter since the above ruling of the Delhi High Court, the Delhi High Court has been party to several hearings in which decisions have also been announced without challenge from the High Court, notably a recent decision in B. S. Mathur vs. High Court of Delhi in file nos. CIC/WB/A/2009/00203, CIC/WB/A/2010/00314 & CIC/WB/A/2010/315 announced on 31.8.2010, which went in favour of CPIO Delhi High Court.
Be that as it may, this Commission has, in compliance with order of Delhi High Court, withdrawn the impugned Regulations. Nevertheless the Commission draws its authority for setting up the Bench not from the Regulations, but under Section 4 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. This was only expatiated on in the Regulations. What the Learned High Court has rightly held then is that the Commission cannot draw its authority to constitute Benches from the Regulation which stand quashed. The basis on which we, therefore, stand by the authority of the Commission to constitute Benches stems from the rulings of the Patna High Court, Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court.
Sec 12(4) reads as follows:
“Section 12(4): The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted
by the Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.
The Bombay High Court in Lokesh Chandra vs. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition No. 5269/2008 observed that it is the prerogative of State Chief Information Commissioner to fix benches. The Hon’ble High Court has observed in this regard that:
“The Chief Information Commissioner has right to decide which appeals are to be heard by whom. This is statutory right and his prerogative under the Statute.2”
Both the Patna and Karnataka High Courts have in fact approved the authority of the Commission to frame Regulations u/s 15 (4), the clause of the Act dealing with State Information Commissions on lines identical to that of Sec 12 (4) in relation to the Central Information Commission, in Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi vs. State Information Commission, CWJC No. 14486 of 2009 and Bangalore International Airport Limited vs. Karnataka Information Commission in Writ Petition No. 8127 of 2008 respectively. These judgments will have to be read together with the very explicit ruling of
the apex court on the exercise of “powers of superintendence, direction and management” by the Election Commission of India in Kanhiya Lal Omar V. R. K. Trivedi (1985) 4 SCC 628 and Union of India V. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294. In light of the above therefore, whereas the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) No. 12714/2009. which quashes the CIC Regulations
of 2007, and hence the authority of the Commission to constitute Benches on the basis of those Regulations, does not deal directly with the constitution of Benches per se, except in relation to these Regulations, nor does the judgment itself rule on this issue, the Commission continues to exercise the
2 Emphasis added responsibility arrogated to it by the law, as nowhere has the Hon’ble High Court called for the suspension of its working by the CIC. On the contrary, this Division Bench has waxed eloquent on the strength of the right to information as embodied in this law as follows:
Information is power. This is truer now, in this information age, than ever before. In a democracy this power of information which the public authorities posses is to be shared with the people. But at the same time, not every piece of information is to be made public. There is the public interest and democratic purpose in dissemination of information on the one hand and the competing private rights and national interests in general nondisclosure on the other. This is recognized in the preamble to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act’) itself:-
“And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal”. (Emphasis supplied)
Subsequent to the above orders of the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court has, in a judgement of 9-7-2010 held in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 19659/2009-Directorate of Enforcement vs. Arun Kumar Agrawal & Ors. as follows:
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In our view, the impugned order does not suffer from any patent legal infirmity requiring interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the parties shall be entitled to make all legally permissible submissions before the Central Information Commissioner.”
In light of the above then the question of the authority of this Commission to constitute Benches for hearing cases before it is, in our view, well settled and observations of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court have been treated as in curiam. Steps have been taken by the nodal ministry so that Commission can continue to function in Benches. We therefore, come to the question of the validity of the site of the High Court vis-à-vis Sec 4 (1) (b). A copy of this statement which has been sent to Shri C.J. Karira through speed post has not thus far brought any rejoinder. In the statement of the reply provided by learned counsel Shri Rajiv Bansal it has been described in some detail as to where on the website of the High Court the information sought might be accessed. There are certain responses like that to the response of sub Sections (vii) and (xii) of Section 4 (1) (b) that no such arrangements have been made by the Court. This is a statement of fact. Thus, as pointed out by learned counsel in the hearing there is only one item in which the full information has not been provided, contrary to what complainant Shri C.J. Karira has submitted. On the basis of this statement we might say that, in fact, the Delhi High Court is indeed in full compliance with the mandated requirement of Section 4 (1) (b) and has the distinction therefore of being one of the regrettably few public authorities who have complied so fully. The details of this compliance are, of course, subject to public scrutiny and also criticism. The citizen has, under the RTI Act, every authority to seek clarifications or obtain disclosure provided these are in accordance with RTI Act. Nevertheless, in the present case both complainant Shri Karira and the Delhi High Court deserve commendation for, on the part of the High Court, holding to the public authority commitment mandated under the law in its capacity as a bastion of the law and risen to its responsibilities in taking pains to explain in detail the manner in which it has adhered the requirements of the law in this case, and on the other complainant Shri Karira, for having invested time and studious examination in seeking to hold so august a public authority to its commitment to the law of the land. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chamber on this 28th day of September, 2010. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) (Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
28-9-2010
No comments:
Post a Comment