[rti_india] Re: SUPREME COURT IMPOSED ONE LAKH PENALTY ON CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AKM NAYAK AND THE SAME IS PAID BY GOVT. ACCOUNT

Friday, May 8, 2015

[rti_india] Re: SUPREME COURT IMPOSED ONE LAKH PENALTY ON CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AKM NAYAK AND THE SAME IS PAID BY GOVT. ACCOUNT

I agree with Shailesh, courts are behaving in rude way with the RTI.

Bhaskar

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:15 AM, shailesh gandhi <shaileshgan@gmail.com> wrote:

It is my belief that in the instant case we should be in agreement with the stand taken by the SIC rather than that of the Supreme Court. By rejoicing every time a Court castigates a Commission for trying to increase the cause of transparency we are becoming party to a gradual weakening of the RTI Act by interpretation. Attaching a paper i have written on the Supreme Court rulings on RTI, and quoting my analysis of the case in reference below:

JUDGMENT 13: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 1853/2013; Karnataka Information Commissioner vs. PIO (HC); GS Singhvi & HL Gokhale 18 January 2013;

About the case: A RTI applicant requested the Karnataka High Court for certified copies of some information/documents regarding guidelines and rules pertaining to scrutiny and classification of writ petitions and the procedure followed by the Karnataka High Court in respect of Writ Petition Nos.26657 of 2004 and 17935 of 2006. The PIO refused the information on the grounds that the applicant should seek the information under the Karnataka High Court rules. When the matter went to the State Information Commission it disagreed with the PIO and ordered the information to be provided under the RTI Act.

The Commission's order was challenged by the PIO in the Karnataka High Court which named the applicant as a respondent in the case and quashed the Commission's order.

The Commission challenged this order before the Supreme Court and the petition was filed by an Information Commissioner. The Court took offense to the petition being filed by an Information Commissioner and said that the Commission and Commissioner have no locus standi and were wasting public money by challenging the order. In a harsh snub it imposed a cost of Rs. 100000 on the Commission.

My analysis of the judgement: It is worth mentioning that the Supreme Court itself had accepted the Chief Information Commissioner (Manipur) as the petitioner in Civil Appeal no. 10727. Many High Courts name the Commission as party in many petitions challenging their decision. The important matter of Section 22 which gives an overriding effect to the RTI Act, was not addressed at all. This harsh snub by the Supreme Court has silenced the Information Commissions into not questioning the Courts, but becoming intellectually subservient to them.

ii) Section 22 states that "the provisions of this RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act". In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was to safeguard the citizens' fundamental right to information from convoluted interpretations of other laws and rules adopted by public authorities to deny information. This section simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for citizens as well as the PIO. Citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act if they desire to. By its order in the case of the Karnataka Commission, the Supreme Court, without addressing the provision of Section 22, sanctified and legitimized denial of information under Right to Information, if any public authority claims there are any other rules for giving information. This ruling has neutralised Section 22 of the RTI Act without any proper reasoning or discussion.

Besides it appears to be contrary to the Supreme Court's pronouncement at para 18 in the CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case quoted above where it had held, ""Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations." Surely the rules of the Court cannot be treated differently.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:19 AM, RUDRAPPA S KUMAR <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friends ,

Chief Information commissioner AKM Nayak violated the supreme court order and paid the penalty of Rs. 1 Laksh imposed against him from the govt. account
For details see the article and the Govt. not initiated any action against him to recover the Rupees one Lakh from his salary and the Govt. fails to take appropriate legal action for mis appopriation of public money and the mater is brought to the notice of Governor and demanded to remove him from chief information commissioner post , But neither the govt. nor the governor initiated any action .He is continuing and enjoying the position

With regards

A R S KUMAR , BE LLB MA Journalism MA Human Rights

High Court Advocate & RTI Activist

Swamy Vivekananda RTI Janajagruthi Mission

Bangalore

--
Love
shailesh
All my emails are in Public domain.
Tel: 91 22 26001003; 8976240798
Mera Bharat Mahaan..
Nahi Hai,
Per Yeh Dosh Mera Hai.