Dear Sunil (as part of your training)
1) The para is wrong and denied. The question of SC not being a public authority was never seriously at issue (unlike the Delhi HC which took 10 months to comply with RTI Act, SC implemented PIO / RTI Rules (almost) from day 1). Hence the judgments of Delhi HC do not "decide" (ie. no what Venkatesh calls the 'ratio decidendi') that SC is a P/A
2) The para is wrong and denied. The Delhi HC decision(s) is not final and has been appealed with notice issued. For various technical reasons the SC could not ask itself for a stay in its own cause.
Explanation: For instance the DHC judgement (which follows the CIC's wooly reasoning) is on very weak footing when it mixes up the "constitution" of the SC *BY* the Constitution of India (as CJI and ..) with "establishment" (very much later) of the CJI as "competent authority" *BY* the RTI Act 2005. A clear case of mixing "oranges" (SC as a body sitting as a Full Bench) and "apples" (CJI in his individual capacity) to get squash(ed).
3), 4) No comment
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> It has already been decided that, Supreme Court is a Public Authority
> covered under the RTI Act.
>
> Hence by virtue of that, it has already been decided (established) that
> CJI's Office too is covered under the RTI Act.
>
> The former CJI felt that this would affect the *Independence of Judiciary*,
> and hence wrote to the Legislature, to intervene and introduce a Bill to
> exempt the CJI's office, from the purview of the RTI Act.
>
> Also for the same reason an appellate review has been sought from the
> Supreme Court itself.
>
> That seems to be the present status of the debate in this thread.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sunil.
>
> --
> It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen -
> Aristotle
>
No comments:
Post a Comment