Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • 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

CIC uses Sec 25(5) and recommends Delhi HC to withdraw certain RTI Rules framed by it

Recommended Posts

karira

Many members of this forum have complained about RTI Rules and Fees framed by many High Courts in the country.

 

In a landmark order, the CIC has recommended to the Delhi High Court, using its powers under Sec 25(5), to withdraw the application of the Delhi HC RTI Rules and Fees to its subordinate courts, citing jurisdictional issues.

 

It has also recommended to the Delhi High Court to withdraw Rules 7(i), 7(vi), 7(vii), and 7(xiii) since they are beyond the exemptions provided for in Sec 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.

 

In the same order, the CIC has quoted a recent judgment of the Delhi HC and held that Sec 22 of the RTI Act over rides CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

 

The High Court Rules of various High Courts are available here: RTI Guide

 

The original order is attached to this post.

SG-11012010-17.pdf

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rajub

Excellent decisions.

 

I think many of us would rethink and reconsider about the opinions expressed about the ability of Shailesh Gandhi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

RTI rules for lower courts irks CIC

As reported by Sh. Abhinav Garg | TNN | Times of India

 

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court may be winning accolades everywhere for expounding on the merits of transparency in its recent verdict on the Right to Information Act vis-a-vis the Supreme Court, but HC’s own track record on this front has left the Central Information Commission (CIC) crying foul.

 

The CIC has found that the HC went beyond its jurisdiction in framing special RTI rules for Delhi’s five district courts and carved out special exemptions for them that go beyond the parent RTI Act.

 

Invoking Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act that stops just short of issuing an explicit direction to a ‘‘public authority’’, the CIC has sent a recommendation to the HC asking it to scrap these rules. ‘‘The Commission recommends to the high court of Delhi to withdraw the rules made by it for district courts due to lack of jurisdiction and the fact that these are beyond the exemptions provided by the RTI Act,’’ information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said in a recent order.

 

Wondering under what jurisdiction HC can impose its brand of special exemptions on the district courts, Gandhi reminded the HC that at the most it can frame rules for itself and not for another public authority.

 

Gandhi urged the HC to be cautious in putting barriers to access of information, pointing out how even the Parliament thinks twice before creating exemptions. ‘‘Even Parliament is very

wary of placing restrictions on RTI, a fundamental right. Hence, HC would be well advised to ensure it doesn’t create any exemption which lawmakers doesn’t provide,’’ the CIC observed in its recommendation.

 

The commission’s recommendation came after HC showed no interest in replying to an earlier notice by the CIC seeking to know by what jurisdiction had the high court framed rules for district courts.

 

The case stemmed from an RTI filed by one Vijay Kumar seeking a copy of an inquiry report conducted by a Tis Hazari judge. The public information officer of Tis Hazari and the officer sitting in appeal declined Kumar’s RTI request relying on the rules framed by HC and a latter HC ruling upholding these rules.

 

Gandhi dismissed these objections, saying the RTI Act is a fundamental right that can’t be abridged or modified, and has now asked the PIO of Tis Hazari to supply the inquiry report to Kumar within a month’s time.

 

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=CAP/2010/01/17&PageLabel=2&EntityId=Ar00201&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-11012010-17.pdf

SG-11012010-17.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Merged threads

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.

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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