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

Information commissioner summons apex court official

Recommended Posts

karira

In the first summons ever to a Supreme Court official, the Central Information Commission has asked the senior functionary to explain his failure to respond to a Delhi resident's plea for information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

 

Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah issued directions April 2 to the apex court's administrative registrar for a personal appearance at the commission at 12 noon on May 25.

 

 

Habibullah asked the official to explain why he should not pay a penalty of Rs.250 for each day of denying the requisite information to Zilley Singh. According to the RTI, a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000 can be imposed.

The official was asked to provide the requisite information to Zilley Singh within 10 days of the order.

 

 

Zilley Singh had filed an application before the apex court in a case related to perjury and wanted to know its status.

 

 

He complained to the commission Sep 22 last year that his request submitted to the administrative registrar, also functioning as chief public information officer under the RTI Act, had not been responded to. He had applied for the information May 10, 2006.

 

 

An administrative registrar's post is equivalent to that of a district court judge. After promotion as registrar general of the apex court, the official could be elevated to high court judge.

 

 

This is the second time the CIC has come out with a ruling against the Supreme Court in its bid to infuse more transparency in the administrative functioning of the court.

 

 

In a path-breaking order March 23, the commission had directed the department of justice under the law ministry to make public a file on the appointment of Justice Vijender Jain as chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

 

 

The order has given the department of justice a month's time till April 22 to disclose to Aggarwal 'all file notings and opinion of the Supreme Court Collegium's member judges on the appointment file'.

 

 

President A.P.J Abdul Kalam had in October last year returned the file for Jain's appointment to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh raising some queries.

 

 

Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, at a press meet Sunday, refused to answer IANS' queries on the CIC orders, saying that they were not on the agenda of the conference.

 

Information commissioner summons apex court official

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agarwalas

What is the outcome in both the cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

1. Regarding the Supreme Court, there is a decision on the CIC website

but it seems to be a broken link.

Please see:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/rti-general-discussions/913-can-any-one-open-pdf-file-central-information-commission-website.html

 

(Do you think it is "genuine" problem with the link or someone trying to play "mischief" ?)

 

2. The other case re Justice Vijender Jain has been granted a stay by Delhi HC.

Please see the following thread:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/rti-news-discussion/707-delhi-hc-stays-central-information-commission-order-justice-jains-appointment.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under: 35.....
      “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” 

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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