Jump to content
News Ticker
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
karira

Delhi High Court quashes RTI Act,CIC Management Regulations 2007

Recommended Posts

karira

Wow !

 

Now we can expect maximum chaos on the RTI front for the next few months......

 

All members/guests, please utilise this window of opportunity to the hilt.

 

1. Those who got their matters heard by a single I/C - file a petition with the CIC citing this order and ask for a hearing by all commissioners.

Ditto with those who were heard by 2 or more IC's

 

2. Those wanting a review of CIC orders, immediately file review petitions and ask to be heard by all commissioners

 

3. No inquiry under Sec 18, by anyone, except the CIC itself - all IC's have to conduct inquiry as a team.

 

4. File Second Appeals/Complaints in any language, besides English and Hindi.

 

5. If your SIC has something similar - like XXSIC (Management) Regulations, 2007, please get a full copy of this order and immediately file a WP in the State High Court and ask for a similar ruling.

 

Sit back and enjoy the fun.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
colnrkurup

Hurray ! Sri.Wajahat and Prof KK Nigam should be ashamed of. We had protracted correspondence on the issue from the second day of framing the so clled CIC

s (Management) Regulation 2007 where Sri.Wajahat had informed me that all my objections are being examined by Prof Nigam, his Legal Advisor. Prof.Nigam also has confirmed me that the issue is under scrutiny. He seems not bothered much afterwards. If he has any self esteem he should resign and pave way for someone who can at least grasp the simple provision viz., Section 12(4) of the RTI Act.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
If he has any self esteem he should resign and pave way for someone who can at least grasp the simple provision viz., Section 12(4) of the RTI Act.

 

Col Kurup,

 

CIC Wajahat Habibullah has already resigned.

Do you want him to resign once again ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
colnrkurup

I meant Prof KK Nigam and not Sri.Wajahat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Col NR Kurup (Retd),

Sir,

You have been consistantly raising doubts about legality of CIC Management Regulations 2007. It has since been rendered illegal by hon'ble High Court as you doubted. Hats off to you Col.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

I am just wondering as to how someone managed to click a picture of a Hearing being held in the CIC ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vijendra singh

Hip,Hip, Hurray.

Perhaps now the CIC will not ask 2 sets of the appeal/ complaint to be filed.

Dishonesty, dictatorship of any IC will be abolished automatically.

CIC has no power to make any regulation/ mgt rule.CIC should not behave like a court. It must behave like an ordinary institution just to decide on the working of the PIOs.

Now perhaps the CIC can not harass the appellants anymore. But what to the already tortured appellants like me? CIC never penalised the evidently proved guilty PIOs knowingly. Will those old PIOs be punished by the erring CIC for retrospective misconducts now? It is a big question now.

But if the all ICs jointly have to hear the appeals; there will be very big crisis of long pending cases. Pendency will be for 4--5 years. & the RTI act will become useless, senseless. What will be done to the old wrong decisions of CIC?

Pl think deeply & widely on the effects of the High Court decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
colnrkurup

Even before his Regulations, theCIC has not been holding hearing of cases collectively. Naturally there is no reason for introducing the collective hearing aspect just because of cancellation of the Regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

I don't see any infirmities in holding single bench as long as the appellant has a "Right to Appeal" to a Larger/Full bench.

 

P.S.

As regards to filing appeals in my own language, I feel lucky to have two ICs who speak/understand Odia perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atul Patankar
CIC Wajahat Habibullah has already resigned.

Do you want him to resign once again ?

 

That will be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advocate rajesh

If it is implemented it is good but as far as I think every appeal should be heard by at least three commissioner. So that the person can get appropriate justice by majority .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rkbheri
I don't see any infirmities in holding single bench as long as the appellant has a "Right to Appeal" to a Larger/Full bench.

 

.

 

 

True.

Just imagine one appellant , tWo from PA and Many ICs and no spectators.

 

If not Possible., ---maintain only 3 ICs total for a commission. This is Public money.

 

RK Bheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

If any one can post order of HC here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rajub
Delhi High Court quashes RTI vbglossarlink.gif 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.

 

 

Does the HC order specifically mention that all appeals must be heard jointly by all ICs?

 

Or, is it the interpretation of the source website?

 

It is a good thing that the Regulations have been scrapped. But all appeals be heard jointly will virtually make the Act useless as pendency of 4-5 years will deter everybody from filing the appeal.

 

However, if every appeal heard henceforth (even if jointly by all ICs) is strictly disposed off in accordance of the Act every appeal (almost) will result in penalty which will have a deterrent effect causing PIOs to reject RTI applications in only deservingly rejectable applications. In that case number of second appeals will dramatically reduce making large no. of ICs redundant. This may cause many Central ICs loose their lucrative jobs:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ravi Maheshwari

As per Karira's post of Nov., 2007, the Division Bench of Delhi HC has quashed the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007. But, according to Notification No. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dated 20/10/2008 of the CIC, an amendment has been made to Regulation 23 of the said Regulations, 2007. Moreover, the CIC is still asking Appellant to submit two sets of appeals as well as asking him/her to serve copies of such appeals to PIO and FAA and sent copy of acknowledgement to the CIC. Could I know from the Forum whether the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 stands quashed or the they are still in force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Could I know from the Forum whether the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 stands quashed or the they are still in force.

 

No one knows the exact status. Not even the CIC.

If you ask some IC's in the CIC, they will say that they do not abide by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vijendra singh

Mr Karira;

Very much sorrowful, & disheartening position.

Such important aspects must be clarified by the CIC immediately ; & it is also mandatory under RTI section 4.

Somebody must file RTI request on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Colnrkurup,

 

Now, please ask Prof Nigam to also resign - CIC WH will have company !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
colnrkurup

Mr.Karira,

 

Whatever little correspondence I had with Prof Nigam during 2007, I had a feeling that he was in full agreement with me. Unfortunately he could not stand against mighty WH and had no choice but to lump. Like we in Army the IAS training also include sufficient introduction to functional law so that an IAS officer does'nt commit blunders like the one WH has committed. He might have missed those classess during his IAS training. In Kerala too we have a similar person in SIC who claim that what he say is law. Thank God that they are not left with much tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Went and delivered a "thunderbolt" in the form of a hard copy of this Delhi HC judgment to the APSIC today. Let us wait and watch what is the reaction in the next few days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

Went and delivered a "thunderbolt" in the form of a hard copy of this Delhi HC judgment to the APSIC today.

Just delivered a copy or it was accompanied by any specific request/demand ?

 

I wish I could do the same here in Orissa too !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Step by step......just delivered a copy to the Registrar cum Secretary law today.

The CIC is on vaccation till 10 June 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

The CIC has now removed the Management Regulations from their website.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 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