Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

The apex court in its Judgement of 12 Dec 2011 on the case [CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-32769/2010) in the matter of Chief Information Commr. and Another ...Appellant(s) - Versus - State of Manipur and Another ...Respondent(s)] has committed errors in fact and judgement as well. 

First, as regards the factual error. The para 35 in the Judgement reads, "The procedure for hearing the appeals have been framed in exercise of power under clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act. They are called the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005". As a matter of fact, the State of Manipur or for that matter Manipur Information Commission is not guided by Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, but by

THE MANIPUR INFORMATION COMMISSION (APPEAL AND PROCEDURE) RULES 2006 notified 

28th December, 2006 (http://maninfocom.nic.in/notice_rules.html ), where there is provision for both 'appellant or complainant, as the case may be'. 

Second, as regards the judgmental error. Para 37 of the Judgement reads, "We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two

different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other". But a careful reading of Section 19 (8) which has been quoted at length in the Judgement at Para-34 would reveal that the said Section has also talked about 'complainant' (Section 19-8b) meaning a person who has made a 'complaint' under Section 18. Moreover, Section 19(9) also refers to 'complainant'. Repeated use of the word 'complainant' in Section-19 implies that the Commission would 'in its decision' do similar kind of justice to an Appellant of Section 19 or Complainant of Section 18 including 'providing access to information' (Section 19-8a-i). 

Besides, Section 20(1) and (2) which deals with 'Penalties' entrusts the Commission with the power to impose penalty on the Public Information Officer 'at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal'. If we are to assume as the apex Court does, that 'The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure", the question arises, can the Commission impose any 'penalty' in the case of a 'complaint' without following any appellate procedure (notice to and hearing of parties etc.)? Certainly not. The above judgement is a case of oversight by the apex court, no more and no less. 

Chitta Behera

   

---

From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

dear sirs, 

this decision is based on basis that  CIC appeal rules( para 35 the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 )are still valid.

however, this facts is wrong.

It is better, to file complaint cum appeal with the commission.

with regards 

rakesh gupta

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:45 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.

The full judgment is attached.

The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?

Beats me completely.

RTIwanted.