Jump to content
  • 0
kshytia

How long is the wait at CIC Delhi?

Question

kshytia

Hi everyone,

 

I just read on a blog that it takes 18 months for cases to be heard at CIC. With this new High Court ruling how much longer will it take?

 

Delhi High Court quashes RTI Act,CIC Management Regulations 2007

 

Nov 27, 2009 – A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice B.D.Ahmed and Justice Veena Birbal today quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations 2007 while hearing India's longest running RTI battle the case of Er.Sarbajit Roy v. DDA. All Central RTI appeals will henceforth be heard by all 10 Information Commissions sitting jointly.

 

In 2005 the complainant Er.Sarbajit Roy had moved India's first RTI case to India' FoI watchdog the Central Information Commission (CIC) complaining that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had failed to comply with proactive disclosure mandated under new India's Right to Information Act 2005.

 

4 years later on 22.09.2009 a twin bench of Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and Information Commissioner M.L.Sharma found Roy's allegations to be true and constituted a 3 member committee to go into all aspect of servicing RTI Act throughout the DDA expeditiously. Roy challenging the appointment of the committee cited the Government of India's legal opinion to CIC for there to be no provision in law for CIC to form benches or committees to decide complaints. The DDA then approached the High Court and obtained a stay against all proceeding in Roy's complaint.

 

The Court heard Er.Roy, standing senior counsel for CIC Prof. K.K.Nigam and standing counsel for DDA Adv. Ajay Verma at length over 2 days. The Court was astounded to learn that the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007 promulgated by CIC which permits setting up of benches and inquiry committees had never been notified in the gazette to have any legal effect. The Court while striking down the Regulations also interpreted section 12(4) of the RTI Act to be a "provision restricting the CIC's autonomy" and not as an enabling provision to frame notifications. Noting that the Department of Personnel (DOPT) had consistently refused to notify the CIC's wide roving regulations, the Court remarked "what was not done by Rules cannot now enter through the backdoor of these illegal regulations".

 

Responding to the decision Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said "It is highly impractical to expect the entire bench to hear every case together especially in the state commissions. We have asked them to provide an alternative, a system in place so that their demand could be considered".

 

CPI Politburo leader Brinda Karat also hit out at the government over the Government demand to force CIC to only sit as a Full Bench in Parliament. "Who is the DoPT to make such demands, the CIC is an independent body. The government has no business getting involved in this."

 

There are now concerns that attempts by the government to restrict the role of the CIC will lead to a massive delay in disposing cases. Already 26,000 cases are awaiting hearing at CIC with an 18 month backlog. The wait has just got longer.

 

# # #

 

Delhi High Court Infowire, an online website for advocates reporting daily hearings from Delhi High Court contributed by advocates who appeared

RTI_001.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Pradip Shah

Dear Kshaytia,

 

Hi!,Welcome to the RTI portal. Visit site and home page whenever time permits you. It’s a knowledge based exercise.

 

Thanks for sharing information on first post.

 

Fight legally for your right!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Ali,

 

What a bomb of a news for your first post !

 

Where did you get that from ?

(I am pasting this in the News and Discussions section)

 

If that is the situation, expect to wait for 10 years for a hearing at the CIC .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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