Please read section 13 carefully
1) 13.1 distinguishes a CIC from an IC. A CIC is NOT an IC.
2) "Every Information Commissioner .. and shall not be eligible for
reappointment as such Information Commissioner:"
NB: "such". It is clear that an IC cannot be reappointed as an IC
3) Section 13 does not place any bar on an IC being appointed and/or
elevated to CIC. In fact 13.2 makes it abundantly clear that an IC can
become a CIC if he were to:"vacate office" either by achieving the age
of 65 or serving 5 years. The clause as it stands can never be given
effect to, because both the trigger events for vacation absolutely bar
an IC from subsequently becoming a CIC as the law stands..
4) The key words in the second provision are "provided further". The
"further" is obviously further to the first proviso which can never
come into effect. So the second further proviso is equally
meaningless.
5) So having established A) that an IC CAN become a CIC AND B) that an
IC to become CIC must VACATE his office by some means OTHER THAN that
under subsection 13(2), the prudent option for Mr Ansari (assuming
that he does not have some Governorship like J&K lined up) would be to
resign under sub-section 13(4) a few days in advance with immediate
effect - preferably directly to Madame President and not via the PMO
route.
Sarbajit
On Oct 5, 9:14 pm, Manoj Kamra <manojka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear sh.Sarbajit Roy ji and Sh Karira ji,
>
> Is there any provision of second innings for IC as per act, aggregate
> period (i/c as cic) can not exceed 5 years. Under what circumstances , it
> can be increased and to what extent. Seven years are needed for him to
> attain 65 years. So india will have to bear him seven more years.
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:52 PM, C J Karira <cjkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mr Sarbajit,
>
> > You should have been a Babu !
>
> > RTIwanted
>
No comments:
Post a Comment