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
smbhappy

Discussion on SC judgement regarding appointments to CIC/SIC

Recommended Posts

skmishra1970

Hon'ble member Mr. Yogi Ji has rightly say - "Justice M. A. Khan was CIC of UPSIC but he was expelled by Mayawati Government in the mid of his tenure on the charges of corruption. No bureaucrat CIC has been expelled on the charges of corruption and maximum completing his full term".

 

Actually in present system, Information Commission is become heaven or Rehablitation Centre for retired beurocrates which is more close to govt. but not close to general public, and this is the reason for maximum order of IC's are without SCN or without Penalty on PIO. Bhanot sahab rightly stated that after the SC Judgement scenes are going to be changed. Hope some good outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogi M. P. Singh
Hon'ble member Mr. Yogi Ji has rightly say - "Justice M. A. Khan was CIC of UPSIC but he was expelled by Mayawati Government in the mid of his tenure on the charges of corruption. No bureaucrat CIC has been expelled on the charges of corruption and maximum completing his full term".

 

Actually in present system, Information Commission is become heaven or Rehablitation Centre for retired beurocrates which is more close to govt. but not close to general public, and this is the reason for maximum order of IC's are without SCN or without Penalty on PIO. Bhanot sahab rightly stated that after the SC Judgement scenes are going to be changed. Hope some good outcome.

Hon'ble member-Section-12

(5) The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. Whether any thing is wrong in this subsection. If Hon'ble Apex court really wants to establish to rule of law in the country 'then why it did not ask the governments concern to provide detail of procedure adopted by them in appointing CICs and ICs instead of threatening to Government to enact law to appoint judicial members specially judges to post of CICs and ICs. Why apex court didn't sought the cause of information commissions flooded with the retied bureaucrats? Whether a mistakes of law is substituted by greater mistakes of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

While I agree with the spirit and concern of Mr Singh, however feel that even if such question would have been raised (if such situation arised in the said case), govt's response would have been evasive, eluding facts leading courts to no where. Same way when various courts or commissions ask suptd of police/ collector about custodial deaths, fire incident,communal riots etc. These reports totally eludes facts even analyzing such reports would require another commission/ committee, which will further lead you nowhere. Therefore under current circumstances and realities of our system sometimes whimsical orders help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogi M. P. Singh

Hon'ble members-Your friend wants that why public spirited persons from media , judiciary , RTI activists , who are struggling for the implementation of the act in order to make it more effective is overlooked and those who never supported the transparency in the working of public authority are appointed as CICs and ICs . What is the cause of this anomaly ? Whether the judges of apex court don't think about the interest of country. Whether the turmoil and disorder growing in the system and now reaching on its climax is only due to executives and bureaucrats and judicial members are not accountable for it . If every thing is O.K. then why common people run away in the name of courts. Even judicial members don't want to face itself cumbersome process of court. Here I wants to recall that justice without force is impotent and force without justice is tyranny. In Indian judicial system ,there is less delivery justices and more tyranny. What is wrong going on in the system , every one knows about it but when the matter is brought up before them they ignore it deliberately and point out those things having less public interest and despite it expect from common people to regard them as honest. We still regard judges ,bureaucrats and executives having excellent track record of service with honesty. We prefer honest even less qualified but ignores dishonest even be too much qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

Am I right in thinking that most of the appeals and complaints (whenever decided after resuming hearings by SIC after CIC's are appointed as per SC's direction), will take into account this additional time(period of non hearings) PIO got to ensure compliance on 6(1) applications. Therefore as soon as hearings are resumed by CIC/SIC's, who so ever PIO is held guilty of delay or denial of information must be compulsorily awarded penalty as he failed to act in this bonus time too!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lissing perme

Any new progress in Review Petition????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogi M. P. Singh

Hon'ble member-Whether you don't know the pace of processing of a litigation in the Indian courts. If you are seeking justice in the Indian courts then you will have to take rebirth to get disposal of case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Any new progress in Review Petition????

 

One of the judges retired before the order was pronounced.

Hence the review petition will have to be reheard again.

New bench has not been fixed as yet.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

Punjab Information Commission in Case No. AC-61 of 2012 decided on 4-3-2013 with No penalty, No compensation and no pointweise relief prayed except Information.

 

03-03-2011 - RTI Application was filled with PIO O/o Civil Judge Jr. Div. Amritsar for copy of one order and others.

10-03-2011 - PIO refused to give information stating - No provision to supply Certified copy under the rule.

26-03-2011 - First Appeal to FAA, due to no response till 18-5-2011

19-05-2011 - Complaint to State Information Commission Punjab u/s 18.

29-09-2011 - Case remanded back to FAA with a direction to dispose within 30 days. Due to no response from FAA

10-01-2012 - Second Appeal u/s 19 to State Information Commission Punjab.

05-09-2012 - Another PIO appeared in Commission and supplied Information. (after 18 months).

04-03-2013 - Final order of SIC Punjab with No penalty, No compensation and no relief prayed for.

 

Copy of Appeal dated 10-01-2012 and Final Order of SIC Punjab dt. 4-3-13 is enclosed.

 

SICP as stating in Consumer Commission that they are awarding compensation u/s 19(8)(b) is totally false, reality is when appellant got information, case is closed. Delay in supplying information even 18 months is no matter, illegal refusal - no matter, loss sufferred by the appellant for unnecessary first appeal, 2md appeal, postage, documentation, attending hearings etc. due to illegal refusal - no matter.

 

I think Hon'ble Supreme Court in Namit Sharma Vs UOI is very right that - Non judicial person in information commission is unable to give justice to the people, hence judicial member is must for info. panel.

 

Members can make a social audit for such type of orders passed by the State Information Commissions.

RTI Application - 2nd Appeal to SIC Punjab.doc

SIC Pb. Final Order Dt. 4-3-2013.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogi M. P. Singh
Why district judge Mirzapur took under teeth the direction High court.pdf Hon'ble members-Please take a glance of attachment in which District Judge Mirzapur has been directed to be instrumental in providing me information but he overlooked it like bureaucratic hierarchy. I don't think that judicial members differ from bureaucrats. Hon'ble member ,we are not governed by rule of law but sheer anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kirank

Even I had similar experience with CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION. I had sought certain information from CSIR, Division of HRD, Info denied, FAA uphelded the denial of information. 2nd Appeal to CIC, CIC issued notice to CSIR for enquiry after 17 months After issue of notice from CIC, CSIR furnished the information before the date of hearing. CIC dismissed the appeal stating that requested info has been provided appeal became immaterial. CIC dint heard my voice regarding compensation as per S. 19(8), not even cared to record the reasoning for my arguments in their ordered.

 

SYSTEM OF BUREAUCRATIC SUPPORT BUREAUCRATUS AND THEY DON'T KNOW TO DELIVER JUSTICE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sajib Nandi

Reported by Zeenews.india.com on Apr 09, 2013

Plea in SC for stay of verdict on appointments in CIC

 

New Delhi: A former information commissioner today moved the Supreme Court seeking stay on "operation" of its verdict which had stipulated that only sitting or retired chief justices of high courts or an apex court judge can head the Central and state information commissions.

 

In their interim application seeking stay of the apex court's September 13, 2012 judgement, former information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi and National Advisory Council (NAC) member Aruna Roy have primarily opposed the direction that Information Commissions (IC) should work in benches of two members and each bench should comprise of a legally trained member.

 

"The review petition needs to be decided expeditiously in the interest of the fundamental right to information and proper enforcement of Right to Information Act or at least the operation of the judgement needs to be stayed in so far as it lays down that Commissions should work in benches of two members and each bench should comprise of a legally trained member," the application said.

 

[TABLE=align: right]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

They have also said that with the Centre's review petition against the apex court's verdict still pending, a lot of uncertainty has been created and many ICs have stopped working in the absence of clarity of how they can function in view of the judgement.

 

"Commissions which have stopped functioning are Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Manipur, Madhya Pradesh and Goa," the plea said.

 

They have also contended that due to the pendency of the review petition, there has been a "freeze" on fresh appointments of commissioners.

 

"Governments are also not sure about fresh appointments they can make. There are no commissioners in Madhya Pradesh and Goa. Even in other states, the process of appointing Information Commissioners has almost come to a halt," the plea said.

 

The Centre had moved the apex court for review of its verdict saying it is against the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Namit Sharma review listed on 16 April in the Supreme Court before Justice Pattnaik and Justice Sikri. Hope we get a good decision for RTI. If the Court continues the earlier decision for two person benches with one retired judge, RTI may suffer a bit initially, but will gain a lot in term of Judicial discipline. If the Court orders a transparent method of selecting Information Commissioners, RTI may get a great boost. Let us hope for a decision which deepens and strengthens our democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

The Supreme Court has stayed part of the Namit Sharma judgement till the review petition filed by the Union of India is decided.

 

Full stay order of the SC is attached to this post.

SC Stay Order Namit Sharma judgment.pdf

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

Comparing with the copy of 13 Sep decision, obtained through this forum, appears to be para-105.8 &105.9(instead of para-108.8 & 9 in the stay order).

 

However, there is no confusion that, except these two paras, the 13 Sep Order shall be implemented in true spirit until the final order.

 

[Last but one para of 13 Sep.Order......It is not only the higher court’s judgments that are binding precedents for the Information Commission, but even those of the larger Benches of the Commission should be given due acceptance and enforcement by the smaller Benches of the Commission. The rule of precedence is equally applicable to intra appeals or references in the hierarchy of the Commission.]

 

 

 

Does it mean, aggrieved by the decision of an IC, an appeal before Ch. IC should be accepted by commission?

 

 

Regards

 

R K Mishra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy
Comparing with the copy of 13 Sep decision, obtained through this forum, appears to be para-105.8 &105.9(instead of para-108.8 & 9 in the stay order).

 

No its Para 106.8 and 106.9.

 

Practically, owing to this clerical mistake, the order dated 16 April 2013 is not valid and Supreme Court has to issue an addendum. The next hearing on 23 April 2013. We may see this clarification then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bpagrawal

Right to information judgment Namita sharma partly stayed

 

While hearing an interim application filed by former Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi and activist Aruna Roy, the Supreme Court has stayed a part of its own judgment in Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2013 (1) SCC 745) whichmandated that only a sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court or a Supreme Court judge could head the Central and State Information Commissions.

The stay order was passed yesterday by a Division Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and A.K. Sikri and it will continue during the pendency of the review petition filed against the judgment in Namit Sharma [Review Petition © No. 2309 of 2012].

 

The Court in its order stated:

Law Web: Right to information judgment Namita sharma partly stayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minturaj

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the operation of its verdict making it mandatory to appoint only serving or retired chief justice of a high court or a Supreme Court judge to be the chief information commissioner (CIC).

 

The CIC heads the panel at the Centre or state level for deciding complaints as well as appeals under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.

 

A bench of Justices A K Patnaik and Arjan Kumar Sikri passed its order staying the September 13, 2012, directions, while hearing the review petition filed by the Union government challenging the judgment.

 

The court also put on hold its orders directing the panel to function in the bench of two-members with one being a judicial member and preference for the appointment of either sitting or retired judge of a high court as information commissioner.

 

The court’s order came on an interlocutory application filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of former information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi and social activist Aruna Roy.

 

The application contended that the apex court’s judgment on a PIL had caused uncertainty in the functioning of the information commissions across the country and a virtual freeze on the appointments.

 

It claimed that commissions in Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Manipur, Madhya Pradesh and Goa had stopped functioning in the absence of clarity.

 

However, the bench refused to stay the operation of the entire judgment.

 

We make it clear that subject to orders that may be finally passed after hearing the review petitions, the competent authority will continue to fill the vacant posts of information commissioners in accordance with the (RTI) Act and in accordance with the judgment in except sub-paras 108.8 and 108.9 which we have stayed.

 

This is to ensure that functioning of the information commissioners in accordance with the Act and the judgment is not affected during the pendency of the review petitions,” the bench said.

 

Source:Apex court stays verdict on CIC appointment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kirank

U TURN BY SUPREME COURT IN REVIEW OF NAMIT SHARMA JUDGEMENT:

There is a news coming that the Supreme Court has announced the Judgement in Review Petition Filed by Union Of India in WP 210 OF 2012. As per the initial news it seems that SC has taken a U turn from its earlier judgement.

 

Still I am not able to find the complete judgement copy in the SC website.

 

Link for the news published in NDTV:

 

RTI: Supreme Court sets aside its own order, says RTI commissioners don't have to be ex-judges | NDTV.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

.

.

Thanks kirank. Not yet updated at SC site:

 

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/92309-2012.pdf

 

I found your report after i posted. The details is here:

As reported by A Vaidyanathan, Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: September 03, 2013 12:05 IST

at ndtv.com

 

RTI: Supreme Court sets aside its own order, says RTI commissioners don't have to be ex-judges | NDTV.com

 

RTI: Supreme Court sets aside its own order, says RTI commissioners don't have to be ex-judges

 

New Delhi: In a big relief to RTI activists, the Supreme Court today recalled its own order - which would have brought sweeping changes in the functioning of the RTI machinery - and said that non-judicial members can be appointed to Information Commissions.

 

"It was a mistake of law," said the top court today, setting aside its order in September last year that made it mandatory to have only retired high court chief justices and Supreme Court judges as information commissioners.

 

The court today said that not just judges - persons of eminence in science and journalism can be appointed to the RTI commissions. But intricate questions related to law should be tackled by legal experts.

 

 

RTI activists had called the ruling completely inimical to the way the RTI machinery should work and said it had led to a virtual freeze in the appointment of information commissioners.

 

The Supreme Court also said today that names picked by a panel for the information commissions have to be made public. Information commissioners are currently selected by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Law Minister and leader of opposition after an open applications process.

 

In its earlier judgement, the court had made it mandatory for the information commissions to work in benches of two members each - one of them being a "judicial member" and the other an "expert member".

 

The court had also asked the Centre to amend the RTI act to accommodate judicial members as Commissioners - but the Centre said it is Parliament's responsibility to amend laws, the court can't dictate it.

 

RTI or Right to Information - a showpiece achievement of UPA-1 - was made into a law in 2005 and was brought in as a measure of transparency to fight corruption, after activists pushed it for several years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kirank

I think that the earlier Judgment of SC is of revolutionary one which would have brought a revolutionary changes in the implementation of RTI act. However, it is sad to see again a Bureaucrats in the place of IC who will have soft corners towards PIO's.

 

But according to the news, SC said that intricate law question should be decided by the legal expert. This means that the IC (Who is ex-BABU) cannot make any precedent decisions?? Or Only part of the judgment is modified by SC or it has completely quashed its earlier judgement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

.

.

As reported by thehindu.com September 3, 2013 12:31 IST

 

Supreme Court recalls verdict on information commissioners - The Hindu

 

[h=1]Supreme Court recalls verdict on information commissioners [/h]

[h=2]Court admits it committed a "mistake of law" by directing only sitting or retired High Court Chief Justices or an apex court judge could head the central and State information commissions[/h]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday recalled an order and admitted that it committed a “mistake of law” by directing that only sitting or retired High Court Chief Justices or an apex court judge could head the central and State information commissions.

A bench of justices A.K. Patnaik and A.K. Sikri withdrew its order of September 13, 2012 in which a slew of directions were passed pertaining to appointment of information commissioners.

“It was mistake of law. We recall the directions,” the bench said while reading out the operative portion of its judgement on a petition filed by the Centre seeking review of its last year’s order.

The Centre had sought review of the apex court’s verdict, saying it is against the provisions of the transparency law.

The apex court, in its judgement last year, had said that like other quasi judicial bodies, people from judicial background be also appointed as members of the central and state information commissions and this should be done after consulting the CJI and chief justices of the respective high courts.

The court had directed the government to amend RTI Act for it. “Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a chief justice of the high court or a judge of the Supreme Court of India,” the court had said.

The bench had passed the order on a PIL challenging section 12 and 15 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, enumerating the qualifications needed for the appointment of members of the commissions.

The bench had, however, refused to quash the sections but asked the government to modify them so that people from judicial background are also preferred for the posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kirank

SUPREME COURT FINAL DECISION IN APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IN SIC/CIC, A YEAR LONG BATTLE CAME TO AN END.

 

Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 this Court can review its judgment or order on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and on an application for review can reverse or modify its decision on the ground of mistake of law or fact. As the judgment under review suffers from mistake of law, we allow the Review Petitions, recall the directions and declarations in

the judgment under review and dispose of Writ Petition © No. 210 of 2012 with the following declarations and directions:

 

(i) We declare that Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act are not ultra vires the Constitution.

(ii) We declare that Sections 12(6) and 15(6) of the Act do not debar a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, as the case may be, or a person holding any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession from being considered for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner, but after such person is appointed as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner, he has to discontinue as Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, or discontinue to hold any other office of profit or remain

 

 

(iii) We direct that only persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in the fields mentioned in Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act be considered for appointment as Information Commissioner and Chief Information Commissioner.

 

(iv) We further direct that persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in all the fields mentioned in Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act, namely, law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance, be considered by the Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioners

 

(v) We further direct that the Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act while making recommendations to the President or to the Governor, as the case may be, for appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners must mention against the name of each candidate recommended, the facts to indicate his eminence in public life, his knowledge in the particular field and his experience in the particular field and these facts must be accessible to the citizens as part of their right to information under the Act after the appointment is made.

 

(vi) We also direct that wherever Chief Information Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be decided in a matter coming up before the Information Commission, he will ensure that the matter is heard by an Information Commissioner who has wide knowledge and experience in the field of law.

 

 

 

 

 

SC Judgment Regarding IC.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

This review judgment just takes us back to the status quo, with the additional option now available to the Govt. of appointing losing candidates in elections as ICs. Earlier, it was retired bureaucrats making a beeline for these posts. Now it will be politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akhilesh yadav

http://newindianexpress.com/editorials/RTI-needs-officials-with-wider-skills-experience/2013/09/04/article1766352.ece

By The New Indian Express on 04th September 2013

[h=1]RTI needs officials with wider skills, experience

[/h]

The Supreme Court (SC) has by recalling an order ended the stalemate in the functioning of information commissioners. Last year, it had ordered that the chief information commissioners at the Centre and the states should only be a sitting or former chief justice of a high court or a former judge of the SC. The order created a lot of confusion, as most of the information commissioners were retired IAS officers and others drawn from professions like the media. Given the shortage of judges, chief justices were not willing to spare any sitting judge to fill such a post. The court should be praised for admitting that its order amounted to a “mistake of law”.

 

In the public perception, the annulled order was aimed at ensuring post-retirement jobs for former SC and high court judges. The apex court had at that time reasoned that the job of the information commissioners was judicial in nature. That is why it had asked the government to involve the chief justice of the SC or the respective high court in the appointment of information commissioners. Even now it desires that a former judge should be preferred for the job. While former judges as information commissioners is welcome, it is wrong to presume that other professionals are not qualified for it.

 

A large number of people have benefited from the enabling provisions of the Right to Information Act since 2005. Also, millions of questions have been asked and answered and there is now greater clarity about the duties and responsibilities of the information commissioners. Their intervention is required only when complaints are received about the designated information officers failing to provide answers. There are no reasons to believe that only those trained as judges are able to handle the job well. Other professionals like bureaucrats, technocrats, lawyers and journalists are equally competent. They only need to ensure that information, as defined by the RTI, is passed on to the people without any hindrance.

 

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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

    • 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