Jump to content

RTI VIdeos

Visit our New RTI Videos. Click here!

News Ticker
Sign in to follow this  
momita

RTI News-Rajya Sabha questioned by CIC as to how impeachment motion against Hyderabad High Court judge C V Nagarjuna Reddy under the RTI Act would be a breach of parliamentary privileges

Recommended Posts

momita

Impeachment motion against Hyderabad High Court judge C V Nagarjuna Reddy under the RTI Act would be a breach of parliamentary privileges- Says RTI reply from Rajya Sabha

The CIC has asked the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to explain how the disclosure of records related to the impeachment motion against Hyderabad High Court judge C V Nagarjuna Reddy under the RTI Act would be a breach of parliamentary privileges.

The question was recently raised by Chief Information Commissioner R K Mathur on a petition of S Malleswara Rao who had sought to know from the Secretariat the number of members of Rajya Sabha who signed and moved the impeachment; the rules and regulations in regard to participation of the members among others.

Officials of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat said some information was provided to Rao but the records related to notice of motion, names of members who withdrew support to the motion etc., are in the custody of Secretary General of the House which have never been made public.

“Such documents relating to or connected with the proceedings of the House are privileged documents and exempted under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent (the Secretariat) stated that once a notice of motion is accepted, as per practice, they disclose the particulars suo-moto,” Mathur noted citing submissions of the Secretariat officials.

In his order, Mathur underlined parliamentary privileges and said certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members.

Mathur directed the Central Public Information Officer of the Rajya Sabha to inform, with approval of competent authority, in writing as to why parting of this information would constitute a breach of privilege of Parliament.


View full entry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • momita
      By momita
      Eleven years after a lawyer sought details under the Right to Information Act from the Gujarat high court, the HC directed its public information officer (PIO) to furnish the details to the applicant.
      According to the commission's advocate, Shivang Shukla, an advocate, Kamlesh Bhavsar, had in 2007 sought information regarding appointment of judges to the Gujarat judiciary since 1990. The PIO supplied information regarding corruption charges against judicial officers and about their convictions within the time limit.

      However, the PIO refused to supply information on Bhavsar's request to furnish the names of all the judges - from the rank of judicial magistrate first class in the lower courts to the justices of the high court - appointed between 1990 and 2007. The PIO told the lawyer that he has asked for the information from the branches concernedand collating the details would take more time. He said he would supply information about the appointments as and when he got the details.

      On the PIO's refusal to part with the information at the same time, citing the delay in collating the details, Bhavsar filed an appeal before the state information commission, seeking a reply from the HC PIO about the applicant's grievance. In reply to commission's query, the HC's PIO explained his position and sent the details that had been collated to the commission, for it to supply to the lawyer. The PIO sent the information to the commission and requested it to supply the details to advocate Bhavsar, if it thought it fit.

      The commission ordered the HC PIO to supply the information to the lawyer. This did not go down well with the HC authorities and the registry challenged the commission's order on the judicial side in 2011. The HC last week dismissed its own petition.
      While directing the PIO to supply the information to the lawyer under RTE laws, Justice A J Desai dismissed the petition filed by the high court itself, in which it had challenged the directions issued to the HC by the Gujarat Information Commission, for furnishing the required information to the lawyer.

       

      View full entry
    • momita
      By momita
      According to the commission's advocate, Shivang Shukla, an advocate, Kamlesh Bhavsar, had in 2007 sought information regarding appointment of judges to the Gujarat judiciary since 1990. The PIO supplied information regarding corruption charges against judicial officers and about their convictions within the time limit.

      However, the PIO refused to supply information on Bhavsar's request to furnish the names of all the judges - from the rank of judicial magistrate first class in the lower courts to the justices of the high court - appointed between 1990 and 2007. The PIO told the lawyer that he has asked for the information from the branches concernedand collating the details would take more time. He said he would supply information about the appointments as and when he got the details.

      On the PIO's refusal to part with the information at the same time, citing the delay in collating the details, Bhavsar filed an appeal before the state information commission, seeking a reply from the HC PIO about the applicant's grievance. In reply to commission's query, the HC's PIO explained his position and sent the details that had been collated to the commission, for it to supply to the lawyer. The PIO sent the information to the commission and requested it to supply the details to advocate Bhavsar, if it thought it fit.

      The commission ordered the HC PIO to supply the information to the lawyer. This did not go down well with the HC authorities and the registry challenged the commission's order on the judicial side in 2011. The HC last week dismissed its own petition.
      While directing the PIO to supply the information to the lawyer under RTE laws, Justice A J Desai dismissed the petition filed by the high court itself, in which it had challenged the directions issued to the HC by the Gujarat Information Commission, for furnishing the required information to the lawyer.

       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy