I daresay that the WP you guys filed and "lost" <strikeout> "did not
win" in HC caused you to research this. You are halfway there but you
need to learn that we are discussing "facts" and "grounds" and NOT
"speculation", "opinion":, "surmises" and other forms of hypotheticals
which cannot be replied to. You are superimposing your set of beliefs
onto this debate.
I'll just list out some off the cuff points for you, summarising
parawise to you in ordinary English the Court's ratio concerning the
Management Regulations. (I am not.going into the other issue of
adverse remark against V-C DDA). I given to understand that a similar
note is being circulated by RTI activists to "assist" the CIC in some
misguided belief that single ICs sitting all over Maharashtra will
dispose of more appeals than all 11 sitting jointly.
1) The para is wrong and denied. The Court found that the Chief
Information Commissioner (as distinguished from the "body") had
completely misinterpreted his misconceived "powers" under 12(4) to do
things not open to him under the RTI Act or the prescribed Rules.
Accordingly the Court granted the specific prayer of the DDA to quash
MR-2007 and especially Chapter 4 thereof which inter-alia contained
the impugned Regulation 13 enabling CIC to constitute Benches and
assign appeals to single commissioners..
(BTW, if you feel that even 1 word in the above statement is "false"
(see I.P.C) you can say "the para is wrong and denied".)
2) Para 2 is wrong and denied. The Hon'ble Court has found Regulation
13 to be issued bereft of any lawful power(s) derived from the RTI Act
or the prescribed Rules thereunder. The ld Couyrt has carefully
examined section 12(4) of RTI Act cited by CIC as the source of its
power. This is a finding from a competent Court of Record with
territorial jurisdiction,including supervisory powers u/a 227 over
"tribunals" situated within such jurisdicition.
3) No comment. Speculative and matter of opinion.
4) The para is wrong and denied. The para is speculative /
hypothetical in nature. The RTI Act does not equate "body" with
"bench" or vice versa anywhere. Actually, the word "body" is used
repeatedly even for non quasi-judicial bodies in the RTI Act to whom
"benches" would not apply. It is pertinent that the terms ":bench" or
"benches" are not used anywhere in the RTI Act or the prescribed
Rules.
4(i), )(ii), (iii) The reason that there is no provision for casting
vote / tie breaker in the RTI Act is because
A) nowhere is there any prohibition or contradiction against the CIC
deciding (as required by section 19.8) to sit exclusively as a body.
It is pertinent that section 2(b) DEFINES the CIC to be a "body:" in
terms of 12(1),
When a direct interpretation (eg. ":sitting as a "body" as explicitly
defined) is possible without any contradiction, it will be preferred
over indirect interpretations
The example of Lok Sabha is inapt, because MPs are representatives of
the people, and their "vote" in LS on Bills etc is a vote (see RPR
Act) on behalf of their electorate.
In any Case where is it provided that the decision of the CIC has to
be by casting 'votes" ? The fact that Parliamentary laws prior to RTI
Act 2005 (such as Indian Electricity Act 2003) explicitly provide
quorums, votes and tie-breakers to Commissions with comparable
statutory powers establishes that Parliament never intended for any
benches to be constituted under RTI Act (Karnataka Rules
notwithstanding). It is pertinent that the preamble to the RTI Act
says it sets out the "practical regime of RTI for citizens".
The fact that there is no requirement in the RTI Act for the CIC to
pass a decision or to set any time frame for it, clearly means that if
the CIC sitting as a body fails to pass a decision there is no
decision at all. There is no such concept of split decisions,
majority/minority etc. They either decide unanimously or not at all.
5) makes no sense.
6) Irelevant argument. See 5(1) also. The CIC can have as many (post)
offices as they want anywhere if allowed by Govt.. For eg the Registry
(assuming that the RTI act allows Registry in first place) can be in
Gurgaon, and the Computer Centre in Aizwal, and Shailesh Gandhi's
interns at JhumriTalaya. 12(7) is an enabling provision and not a
restrictive provision.
7) In summary, simply substitute "Commission acting as a collective
body" everywhere in the Act in place of "Central Information
Commission" and see if there are any irreconciliable contradictions.
Remember 2(b) DEFINES "Central Information Commission",. If there is
any problem here the RTI ACT itself must be challenged The SC decision
in case of relative powers of Election Commissioners comes in very
handy now.
Sarbajit
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> Thanks for your prompt responses.
>
> Subject: Body of Information Commission means Bench of Information Commission ?
>
> 1. The recent HC decision interprets the power (not) vested in CIC by virtue of RTI Act, 2005,
>
> No statutory power to make Rules and Regulations and hence quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations 2007, including Regulation13.
> The Statute does not provide the power of Appellate review of cases decided by the Commission itself, by constituting benches for the same.
>
> 2.. The quashing of CIC(M)R, 2007 especially Regulation 13, has lead to some doubts, about whether individual IC or a complete bench of ICs, should conduct each hearing.
>
> 3. It seems the confusion arises from the use of word "body" in section 12(1).
>
> 4. The meaning of word BODY is not verbatim the meaning of word BENCH , and therefore the meaning of word body is open to subjective interpretation,
>
> If the intent of the Legislature were to interpret the word "body" verbatim as the word bench, then the Statute would have explicitly and unambiguously defined under section 2, titled "Definitions" that "Body" means "Bench" for the purpose of hearings conducted under the Act,
>
> Moreover the Legislature in its wisdom would have envisaged the situations arising out of the functioning of a body as a bench (where more than one individual will be involved in a decision making process) and would have provided for situations arising out of the functioning of a bench , especially to prevent an evenly split decision:
>
> (i) Not Provided for a CASTING VOTE to deal with TIE situations:
>
> For Example explicit provision has been made in the Constitution of India to take care of a tie:
>
> Excerpt from Article 100(1), Article 189(1) of the Constitution of India.
>
>> Quote:
>> The Speaker or Chairman, or person acting as such,shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes.
>> Unquote
>
>
> Therefore missing statutory provision: In the event of an evenly split decision, XX will exercise a casting vote to resolve the tie (as per the Act, CCIC has administrative superintendence and not quasi-judicial to implicitly exercise a casting vote in case of a tie),
>
> (ii) Alternately the Statute would have provided for a Bench consisting of an odd number:
> (The benches are always odd in number i.e. 3,5,7,9 to avoid a tie)
>
> Therefore missing statutory provision: The body of Information Commission shall consist of a CCIC and such number of ICs, not exceeding ten, but at all points in time, the total number of ICs including CIC shall be ODD in number and at no point in time the total number of ICs including CIC would be EVEN in number, to avoid a tie.
>
> In the event an IC is absent, the body shall maintain the odd number while conducting a hearing.
>
> (iii) The Act would have also laid down the QUORUM criteria for the bench to function.
>
> 5. In the absence of the above mentioned missing statutory provisions in the Act, the most likely interpretation of the use of word "body" is that it has been used for creating an independent autonomous body.
>
> 6. Moreover section 12(7) [similarly (15(7)] states that "The headquarters of the Central Information Commission shall be at Delhi and the Central Information Commission may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, establish offices at other places in India."
>
> Can it be inferred that the intent of the legislature was to establish a HQ to house the body of Information Commission (CIC & ICs) , and the rest of the offices at various places as mere clerical extensions, without being headed by one of the Information Commissioners.
>
> If that is so, quite a few State Information Commissions and Appropriate Governments across the nation have not interpreted the meaning of the word "body" as the word "bench" and established a number of offices within a state, each headed by an individual Information Commissioner with the intention of individually hearing appeals / complaints under the Act.
>
> 7. Hence to summarize the implications of the recent HC judgment:
>
> (i) Information Commission has Civil Court powers limited to sec. 18 (a) to (f) while inquiring complaints under sec. 18 - Explicit Interpretation
>
> (ii) ICn has No Statutory Power for Appellate Review of it's own judgments - Explicit Interpretation.
>
> (ii) ICn has No Statutory Power to make Rules & Regulations - Explicit Interpretation.
>
> (iii) Whether every single hearing shall be conducted by an individual IC or a Bench of ICs - NO Explicit Interpretation.
>
> Hence the present status on the subject of body v/s. bench is - Neither CIC can make Rules or Regulations, nor are there any prescribed Rules and Regulations, nor is there any specific explicit provision in the Act, nor any explicit interpretation / directive in the recent HC judgment for the same.
>
> In the absence of any prescribed Rules & Regulations, or an explicit interpretation of an existing statutory provision from a authority higher than Information Commission, the existing provisions of the Act are open to interpretation by the implementing authority (presently without making explicit Regulations for the same), with the help of established norms, standard practices, interpreting the intent of the legislature, the way other similar quasi-judicial / judicial bodies function etc.
>
> 8. In the absence of an explicit violation, how can a purported implicit violation invite contempt of court on the subject of body means bench. (if there is any explicit law on the subject, I would appreciate if it can be shared on the forum).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sunil.
>
> --
> It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen - Aristotle
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
rti_india-digest@yahoogroups.com
rti_india-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rti_india-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment