Jump to content
Sajib Nandi

The Supreme Court of India on Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005

Recommended Posts

parsar

THE CIC/SIC should record reason, there are many instances that pio do not furnish information deliberately. But commissioners do not record the same in their orders. Thus PIOs have their days and continue to delay information. So SIC/CIC need to follow the law laid down by the Apex court.

 

thanks sajid for the posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I do not think ICs have inclination or time or energy to go through mandated elaborated application of mind and procedure to penalise any PIO. It is then better not to penalize PIO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

1. This order of the Apex Court can also be used for securing "hearing" from the FAA also.

 

2. Some points of this judgment are contrary to the principles laid down in the Namit Sharma review petition...where the same court held that CIC/SIC are not judicial or quasi judicial bodies but only perform administrative functions.

 

3. This observation of the Apex Court (on page 26 of the judgment):

 

The purpose of the legislation in

requiring both these proceedings to be taken together is obvious

not only from the language of the section but even by applying

the mischief rule wherein the provision is examined from the very

purpose for which the provision has been enacted. While deciding

the complaint or the appeal, if the Commission finds that the

appeal is without merit or the complaint is without substance, the

information need not be furnished for reasons to be recorded.

 

is also important because in some SICs (and a few ICs in the CIC also) pass separate orders regarding Penalty / Disciplinary action - separate from the main order. If both proceedings are taken together (as the apex court states in the above para), then even judgments of two HCs that applicant/appellant/complainant need not be heard or present before deciding on Sec 20(1) and 20(2), also become null and void.

 

In the last para also, the apex court has stated:

 

It will also be open to the Commission to

hear the appellant and pass any orders as contemplated under

Section 20(2), in furtherance to the notice issued to the appellant.

 

 

 

Please see HC decisions here:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/docs/court-judgements-rti-issues/448-delhi-hc-reiterates-appellant-not-part-pen

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/docs/court-judgements-rti-issues/447-not-mandatory-hear-appellant-penalty-proceed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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