- How many judges we have seen who r honest
- Who do not delay, who refuse to adjourn on weak reasons, who are ready ??
- Which couts whether labour, consumer to higher are working on current year basis??? Never. All of them are manged by delay devils and we do not want them in Information commission. ....Alok
Posted by: "shailesh gandhi" shaileshgan@gmail.com shailesh_gandhi47
Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:12 pm
The Supreme Court has given a judgement in Namit Sharma vs.Union of India
on 13 September, 2012 in WP( C) 210 of 2012. The Court has given directions
that all Information Commissions shall work in Benches of two members, and
one member should be a 'judicial member'. Thus 50% of theCommissioners will
now be retired judges. Effectively the disposal of pending caseswill drop
to about 50% of the current disposals. This will lead to
Commissionsdeciding cases after 5 years or more in the next few years.
Citizens should question this judgement and ask for a review by a larger
bench, if they want RTI to remain relevant. I believe there are adequate
legal grounds to challenge this judgement.
If we keep quiet and do not get the SC to stay this judgement, RTI may
wither away.
RTI Act and the Supreme Court's Judgement
I remember a story I had heard as a child. A very beautiful princess had a
curse upon her. If she kissed anybody, the person would die in a few years.
She was virtuous and good,but whenever she fell in love with a handsome
prince and kissed him, the prince would wither away and die. The Supreme
Court has pronounced a verdict on 13September about the Constitution and
selection of Information Commissionerswhich could have a similar effect on
the Right to Information Act. In thejudgement in Namit Sharma vs. Union in
WP( C) 210 of 2012 the Supreme Court hasruled that the RTI Act is not
unconstitutional, but has then said that sincethe work of the Commission is
quasi-judicial, atleast 50% of all Commissioners must be judges. All
benches must be oftwo members, out of whom one member should be a judicial
member. It further directs that First appellate authorities should be
legally equipped. There aremany quasi-judicial functions performed in our
country. The Election Commissionis certainly performing a quasi-judicial
function. Yet, for years it was not felt that it could not function without
retired judges, and has delivered itsduty in a time-bound manner. Every
collector performs quasi-judicial functions,but they need not be legally
qualified. However for understanding and implementing the Right to
Information, people with judicial experience arerequired.
One of the grounds for this direction by the apex Court is Section 22 ofthe
Act. Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of
the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law
for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of
any law other than the RTI Act. In otherwords, where there is any
inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing ofinformation, such law shall
be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non- obstante clause in
Section 22 ofthe RTI Act was a conscious choice of the Parliament to
safeguard the citizens'fundamental right to information from convoluted
interpretations of other laws adopted by public authorities to deny
information. The presence of Section 22 of the RTI Act simplifies the
process of implementing the right to informationboth for citizens as well
the PIO; citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to
information by simply invoking the provisions of the RTIAct.
Given the above, two scenariosmay be envisaged:
1. An earlier law/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of
information and is consistent with the RTIAct: Since there is no
inconsistency between the law/ rule and the provisions of the RTI Act, the
citizen is at liberty to choose whether she will seekinformation in
accordance with the said law/ rule or under the RTI Act. If thePIO has
received a request for information under the RTI Act, the informationshall
be provided to the citizen as per the provisions of the RTI Act and
anydenial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the
RTI Actonly; and
2. An earlier law/ rule whoseprovisions pertain to furnishing of
information but is inconsistent with theRTI Act: Where there
isinconsistency between the law/ rule and the RTI Act in terms of access to
information, then Section 22 of the RTI Act shall override the said law/
ruleand the PIO would be required to furnish the information as per the RTI
Actonly.
Parliament had consciously inserted this clause to ensure that the RTI Act
is simple to use and can be accessed by ordinary citizens, without the
trappings of a legally perfectprocess, which does not deliver to the
poorest citizen. The apex Court has ruled that 'TheInformation Commissions
at the respective levels shall henceforth work inBenches of two members
each. One of them being a 'judicial member', while the other an 'expert
member'. Immediately, most Information Commissions will stop functioning
since most of them do not have judicial members. Even when they do manageto
get these, they will have to function as two member benches, reducing
theirdisposal to about 50% of the current disposal. In the Central
Commission,- at the presentrate of disposal,- it appeared that there would
be over three year's backlog inthe next five years. With the disposal
dropping to half, the backlog will beover five years in the same period.
The same position will prevail in most ofState Commissions.
Have we forgotten Justice Mathew's clarion call in State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 - "In agovernment of responsibility like
ours, where all the agents of the public mustbe responsible for their
conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people ofthis country have a
right to know every public act, everything that is done ina public way by
their public functionaries. They are entitled to know theparticulars of
every public transaction in all its bearing. Their right toknow, which is
derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a
factor which should make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions
which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security". We might
retain the process of following theConstitution and the legitimacy of
various Institutions, but if we do not deliverto Citizens, we fail as a
Nation. In this case the fundamental right ofCitizens is at stake. Citizens
have great respect and hope from the Right toInformation Act. This is a
request to the Supreme Court to find a way which does not result in the
kiss of death for this cherished right.
--
Love
shailesh
All my emails are in Public domain.
Mera Bharat Mahaan...
Nahi Hai,
Per Yeh Dosh Mera Hai.
No comments:
Post a Comment