| Some Clarifications Requested |
Dear Members,
I shall be grateful if some legal experts could kindly illuminate me on the following points:
- Delhi HC bench noted that CIC is not a court and certainly not a body which exercises plenary jurisdiction. The CIC is a creature of the statute and its powers and functions are circumscribed by the statute. It does not exercise any power outside the statute.
Querry: What is plenary jurisdiction and where is it defined. Section 18(3) provides that the Information Commission shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of the persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath or to produce the documents or things etc. How is a CIC bench exerecising such powers different than a civil court bench exercising these powers.
- sarbajit roy wrote on 9 June, 2010:
12(4) is not an ENABLING provision to grant "autonomy" to CIC. It is a LIMITING provision which restricts the powers conferred on CIC conferred elsewhere in the Act (sect 18 .. 20).
Querry: As per sec 12(4), the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of CIC shall vest with Chief Information Commissioner (ChIC) who shall be assisted by ICs and may exercise all powers and do all acts and things which may be done by CIC autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this act. What could Mr Sarabjit mean by his coments. In my opinion, sec 12(4) is quite clear, CIC is autonomous and fully empowred to make rules, regulations, standing orders, office orders etc (by whatever name they call it) within the domain prescribed by the act and the rules made by the govt and the competent authorities u/s 27 & 28 of the act.
M K Singhal
No comments:
Post a Comment