THE LAW JOURNEY

Tag: rti notes

  • Relation between RTI and Corruption

    Relation between RTI and Corruption

    Relation between RTI and Corruption, RTI (Right to Information) and corruption are inextricably linked. RTI gives citizens the legal right to access information from public authorities, which promotes transparency and accountability in government operations.

    Corruption, on the other hand, thrives in an atmosphere of secrecy and opacity. Corrupt officials may refuse or withhold information in order to conceal their misconduct. RTI contributes to the prevention of such behaviours by allowing citizens to have access to information and hold public officials accountable for their actions.

    Furthermore, RTI can be utilised to uncover corruption by providing facts of public funds embezzlement, fraudulent activities, and other corrupt practises. People can use this information to sue corrupt officials and seek justice.

    RTI affects/ controls/ attempt to control/ curb/ tackles corruption in following ways :

    (i) Accessibility

    RTI Act enables the citizens to access information relating to the working of the government or public
    authority except such information which is a prohibited from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI act.

    (ii) affordability

    Under RTI act, no public authority can charge more than rupees 50 /application.
    Case : common cause (c.c) v. Allahabad High Court :- petitioner challenge the RTI rules,2006 of Allahabad High Court on the ground that same was in contravention of several clause of RTI act has rule 4 of the impugned rule declared a fee of rupees 500/application was not in accordance with the provision of RTI act. Supreme Court held that fees for filling application under RTI shall not exceed rupees 5 & 5
    copying/photocopy for all government authorities.

    (iii) less time consuming

    Public authority can’t deny information and it has to provide it to the applicant in 30 days or 35 days if RTI
    application is transferred to another public authority.

    (iv) Transparency

    These act imposes obligation on public authority that they will provide it on the Internet. all necessary
    information regarding public authority should be published within 120 days from the enactement of these act.

    (v) awareness leads to accountability

    RTI act is helpful in promoting awareness there by encouraging accountability of government.

    Conclusion | Relation between RTI and Corruption

    In summary, RTI is a powerful tool to combat corruption and promote transparency in government functioning. It enables citizens to access information and hold public officials accountable, thereby promoting good governance and reducing corruption.

    Related Post | Relation between RTI and Corruption

    References

    • Commentary on The Right to Information Act by J. N. Barowalia, 2010
    • Right to Information by K. B. Rai, 2020
    • Right To Information Law & Practice by R. K. Verma, 2010
    • The RTI Story: Power to the People by Aruna Roy, 2018

    Sources

  • Severability Under the RTI Act, 2005 | Section 10

    Severability Under the RTI Act, 2005 | Section 10

    Severability Under the RTI Act of 2005, severability refers to the process of separating exempted information from non-exempted information in a requested record. This means that if a record contains both exempted and non-exempted information, the public authority must offer access to the non-exempted information and sever the exempted information before granting access to the applicant.

    The principle of severability is significant because it ensures that the public’s right to access non-exempted material is not hampered unnecessarily by the inclusion of exempted information. It also prevents the public authority from using the presence of exempted information to refuse access to the whole record.

    The RTI Act of 2005 requires public authorities to offer access to as much of the requested data as feasible, and severability aids in this goal. The public authority must provide the non-exempt portion of the record, as well as an explanation of why the rest of the information was exempted.

    If it is not practicable to separate the exempted information from the non-exempted information, the public authority shall offer a clear explanation of why access to the record or information requested was denied.

    Severability provisions ensure that the public authority does not withhold information arbitrarily on the grounds that it contains exempted information. It encourages transparency and accountability in the operations of public authority and contributes to the people’s faith in the government.

    Followings are the provisions related to severeability under section 10 of RTI Act, 2005.

    Exempted Portion To Be Separated { Section 10(1) } | Severability Under the RTI Act

    Section 10(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.

    Explanation – This section has to be read in continuation with the exemptions provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. It takes care of a situation wherein part of the information requested for falls under exemptions provided under the Act and part of it is not. The part of information likely to be provided under the Act has to be severed or separated from the exempted portion of the information. If after such severing the remaining part of the information remains reasonable and it makes sense even after such separation, the same may be allowed under the provisions of the Act.

    But before doing so it may be kept in mind that the SPIO is declining a part of information requested by the applicant and thereby he is declining the right to information to that extent. When the substantial right available under the Act is declined, the interests of the applicant are being adversely affected. So, as per the requirement of natural justice the applicant has to be given a notice in this regard under sub section (2) of Section 10.

    (2) where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing –

    Notice Of The Part Denied 2(a)

    (a) that only a part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;

    Explanation – Sub section (2) deals with the detailed procedure in this regard. It makes every effort to make it as transparent and self revealing exercise as possible. The vital information to be conveyed to the applicant is the decision of severance of information requested by the applicant. Before, he gets the partial information. he may be duly conveyed such decision. It gives an opportunity to the applicant to know the decision so reached at by the SPIO on his application. After he knows the decision he may make up his mind regarding the further course he may like to adopt once he knows the extent of his application being allowed and the quantum of information being denied to him

    Notice Of Reasons For Such Denial 2(b)

    (b) the reasons for the decisions, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;

    Explanation – This is the important part of the notice to be issued to the applicant. The decision regarding refusing the part of information under the provisions of exemption by way of severance is a vital decision. As already explained, it has to be a vital and conscious decision by the SPIO in the form of a detailed reasoned order.

    The entire facts of the case have to be properly examined and analyzed and the reasons for denial of information have to be delineated in detail Simultaneously, the material facts of the information have to be fitted in the exemption provisions to justify the detailed reasoning Thus the findings which are based on law and logic have to be recorded by the SPIO. The same have to be informed to the applicant along with the notice to be issued under sub-section (1).

    Name And Designation Of The Person And The Fee To Be Charged 2(c)

    (c) the name and designation of the person giving the decision;

    Explanation – The name and designation of the person giving the decision is required to be given for more than one reason. It facilitates the applicant to contact the official in person, if required, for further clarification while filing the appeal in the matter. While filing the appeal the applicant may be able to identify and mention the authority whose orders he is going to challenge In addition to the above, by mentioning the name and designation of the officer, the Act attempts to create an implied sense of responsibility in the person who is passing the order. It tries to bring out such orders from the possibility of casualness.

    Calculations Of The Amount To Be Charged 2(d)

    (d) the details of the fee calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit;

    Explanation – Thus provisions give a multi-purpose dimension to the notice to be id under sub-section (1). Apart from conveying the decision of severance, it is used to convey the amount of fee to be charged from him for providing the proposed information. In other words, the notice for fee to be given under Section 7 (3) ha been assimilated and incorporated in the proposed notice under Section 10 (1) The details of fee and the calculations made thereof as provided under Section 7(3) have to be sent along with the notice under Section 10(1).

    It hardly needs a mention that this fee would only be for the extent of the information, to be provided after such severance from the part of information to be exempted from disclosure, under the provisions of the Act.

    Right To Review And Appeal 2(e)

    (e) his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of Section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access.

    Explanation – This clause of Section 10 (2) may be called a combination of Section 7(8) and 7(3). Under Section 7(8) when the information is to be refused the reasons for such refusal are to be intimated to the applicant. Similarly, under Section 7(3) the details of fee amount and calculations are to be intimated.

    The particulars of appellate authority and the time limit for such appeal have also to be intimated under both these provisions. Since under the provisions of Section 10 a part of the information has to be refused and the fee has to be demanded, if required, for the part of information severed and proposed to be supplied. Therefore, notice must convey the detailed provisions of appeal or review of the decision regarding the refusal of part of the information and the amount of fee to be charged along with the form of access to the record.

    It is because of the additional reason that the form in which the information is proposed to be supplied may not suit to the applicant. Thus the provisions contained in Section 10 (2) (d) are an assimilation of various provisions of the Act keeping in view the complexity created by the principle of severability applied under this section

    Related Post | Severability Under the RTI Act, 2005

    References

    • Right To Information Law & Practice by R. K. Verma, 2010
    • The RTI Story: Power to the People by Aruna Roy, 2018
    • Commentary on The Right to Information Act by J. N. Barowalia, 2010
    • Right to Information by K. B. Rai, 2020

    Sources

  • Third Party Information Under RTI Act, 2005

    Third Party Information Under RTI Act, 2005

    Third Party Information Under RTI Act, 2005 – Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, there may be cases where the information requested by an applicant contains third-party information. Third-party information refers to information that belongs to a person or organization other than the applicant and the public authority.

    The RTI Act provides a mechanism to protect third-party information from disclosure. The public authority must give notice to the third party whose information is being sought and give them an opportunity to present their views before making a decision on whether to disclose the information.

    Following are the provision related to Third Party Information Under section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.

    Right Of The Third Party { Section 11(1) }

    11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,

    as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

    Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party.

    Explanation – This section of the Act is primarily intended to protect the interests of a third party when making a decision regarding the disclosure of information about that third party. It relates to information provided in confidence to the public authority by a third party. In general, it is founded on mutual trust and confidence between the Public Authorities and such third party.

    As a result, when a request for such information is made, the concerned SPIO must make a preliminary determination as to whether such information should be provided. Once he intends to disclose this information to the applicant under the Act, he has to hear the third party by way of notice within five days of receipt of application. The SPIO would give notice, indicating the fact of his intention to impart this information inviting third party to make his oral or written representation, if any, in this regard. While taking such decision the SPIO would consider such representation.

    However, there is no specific exemption or ban on disclosure of such information under this section. Except in the case of trade and commercial secrets, as provided under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, any such information may be disclosed in public interest. However, it may be appreciated that under the exempted provisions of Section 8(1) (d) also it has to be provided, if the disclosure of such information outweighs the protected interest involved in such disclosures.

    Therefore, tentatively and apparently both the provisions lead to the same conclusion. But still there is a difference of strength and force behind these two provisions. When the specific information regarding trade and commercial secrets has been exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) and the same thing has been reiterated under proviso to Section 11 (1), it means that the information related to this provision has to be given only under extra-ordinary standards of requirement of disclosure.

    The information on the subjects mentioned under Section 8(1) (d) has to be disclosed only when an extraordinary requirement does exist. The exemptions provided under the Act make this information a part of a specific class which deserves special treatment while deciding the issue of disclosure. Therefore, such information has not to be allowed in routine. However, the remaining information as provided under the provisions of Section 11 has to be decided under this section keeping in view the protected interest of the third party and the public interest involved in the disclosure of such information.

    The Opportunity Of Hearing { Section 11(2) }

    11(2) Where a notice in served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

    Explanation – This sub-section provides for the response of the third party to the notice issued to hin: under sub-section (1). The stipulated period of such response is 10 days. The third party has to respond to this notice in the form of a representation which may be oral or in writing. If he fails to represent within this period it may be presumed that he/she has nothing to say against the disclosure of such information.

    The CIC (FB) in Bombay Stock Exchange v. Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBD), was held that it was not binding obligation on the PIO to except the objections filed by the third party under Section 110) of the Act. It is just to given an opportunity to such third party to present their case before a decision was taken regarding the dissemination of information.

    The Extended Limit { Section 11(3) }

    11(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under Section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

    Explanation – It expresses the impact of third-party proceedings on the response period of the SPIO’s disposal of the application. The proceedings initiated by notice under subsection (1) and the answer to the notice received under subsection (2) cause a delay in the final judgement under Section 7. (1). The duration of the proceedings causes the final disposal restriction to be extended. As a result, it is an exemption to the thirty-day time restriction specified in Section 7. (1).

    However, it has been kept forty days in spite of the fact that the proceedings under Section 11 have consumed extra period of 15 days. 1. five days for notice and ten days for its response. Therefore, it has been the consistent effort within the provisions of the Act to expedite the disposal of the information as early as possible. The SPIO and the other authorities under the Act have to read this spirit between the lines. The decision taken under this sub-section has to be notified to the third party.

    Right To Appeal Of The Third Party { Section 11(4) }

    11(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 19 against the decision.

    Explanation – It provides for informing the third party of his right to appeal through the notice of decision provided for in sub-section (3). If the third party is dissatisfied with the decision of the SPIO given to him/her under sub-section, he/she has the right to appeal under Section 19. (3).

    The purpose of the statement to be included in the notice is simply to make the proceedings transparent and to guarantee that the third party’s interests are not jeopardised owing to ignorance of the Act’s provisions. Though as a general principle of law the ignorance of law is no excuse, but here an attempt has been made to avoid such a situation by entrusting this responsibility to the SPIO to make the third party aware of law.

    Related Post | Third Party Information Under RTI Act, 2005

    References

    • Commentary on The Right to Information Act by J. N. Barowalia, 2010
    • Right To Information Law & Practice by R. K. Verma, 2010
    • The RTI Story: Power to the People by Aruna Roy, 2018
    • Right to Information by K. B. Rai, 2020

    Sources

  • Powers and functions of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission

    Powers and functions of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission

    Powers and functions of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission – The provisions in relation to the functions of the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commission are given in section 18 of the Right to Information Act. Section 18 has a total of four sub-sections relating to the powers and functions of the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commission.

    According to section 18 (1), the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission should, subject to the provisions of this Act, investigate and receive complaints from the persons mentioned in this section.

    Person who will receive the complaint are as follows –

    1. Who could not submit the request for information because no information officer has been appointed by the public authority or the application for information or appeal under this sub-section has been made by the Public Information Officer or Assistant Public Information Officer under section 19 (1) has refused to accept to forward the application to the specified senior officer or Information Commission.
    2. Access to any information requested under this act is denied.
    3. Answer has not been given for access to information within the stipulated time frame.
    4. Unreasonable fees have been demanded.
    5. One who believes that there is false and incomplete information given under fear.
    6. The request or access to the act that relates to it.

    Section 18 (2) of the Act empowers the Information Officer to be investigated on reasonable grounds.

    Powers of Central Information Commission and State Information Commission

    Section 18 (3) of the Right to Information Act 2005 provides for the powers of the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commission.

    As per Section 18(3) of the Act the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commission shall have the same powers in relation to the investigation in these sections as are vested in the Civil Court while trying any suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters, namely –

    A. Forcing a person to present documents or things for issuing summons, appearing and giving oral or written evidence on oath.

    This sub-section provides legal strength to the procedures adopted by the Commission during the course of inquiry. Notwithstanding the powers vested in the Commission under the Act, it is not a judicial body but it is a statutory institution. However, to conduct an inquiry a process has to be adopted in which attendance of persons and presentation of documents have to be ensured. ror this purpose the Commission requires the legal force and support for successful conduct and conclusion of such inguiry. Therefore, keeping in view of this requirement this sub-section vests powers of Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of matters specifically mentioned under the sub-section clauses (a) to (f).

    B. Expecting disclosure and inspection of documents.

    When a particular document is required to be inspected or discovered durine the course of enquiry before the Commission, such document may be ordered to be produced by the Commission. If required under the circumstances, the Commission may issue search warrants also for that purpose and may authorize to unlock or enter upon the premises for the purpose of recovery of such document Alternatively, the Commission may authorize the inspection of such documents at any place or in custody of any person or authority.

    C. Acquisition of evidence on affidavit.

    The Commission may receive evidence by way of affidavit. If the Commission so feels, it may direct any person or institution to file an affidavit in a matter of enquiry being conducted by the Commission to clarify certain issues or to place certain facts on the record of the Commission. The person or institution so ordered by the Commission would be bound to file such affidavit under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

    D. Soliciting any public record or copy thereof from any court or office.

    If any particular record is required during the course of such enquiry by the Commission which is in the custody of some court or office, the Commission may call for such record by way of a requisition order to be issued to the person holding such record in that office or the court. If such record is not produced in spite of such order, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code to force the production of such record may be resorted to by the Commission.

    E. Issuing summons for examination of persons or documents.

    If during the course of any enquiry the examination of a witness or document is required, the Commission may issue summons for the attendance of such witness or for the production of such record or document. In case the summons is not responded to, in spite of due service, the Commission may fore the attendance of such person or production of such record.

    F. Any other matter to be prescribed.

    Commission may adopt any of the procedures prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code for the successful conduct of enquiry regarding any other subject also, which has not been enumerated herein. The powers of the Civil Court are available to the Commission for this purpose as per provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. This is a miscellaneous provision to take care of the unvisualised and unforeseen situation arising before the Commission during the course of enquiry.

    Section 18 (4) of the Act provides that the Information Commission may examine any record “provided that the Act applies to it and is under the control of the public authority and the records are not withheld on any basis. Notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other Act made by Parliament or the Legislature on this record, section 18 (4) of this Act shall be effective i.e. the record shall be examined.

    In the matter of State of Gujarat v. Pandya Vipul Kumar Dinesh Chandra (A.I.R. 2009 Gujarat 12), it was held that the Chief Information Commissioner has the power to give instructions for the supply of information and in some cases, if the information is not provided properly, it can take directions for purifying and providing such information.

    In the matter of Praveen Kumar v. Western Railway, Jodhpur, C.I.C.O.K.A. 2007, it was held that the Commission is empowered to issue show cause notices. It may issue a show cause notice as to why imposition of penalty for delay and supply of information in transfer of application should not be imposed.

    In the matter of Manoj Pai v.’Western Railway, Jodhpur, C.I.C./O.K.A. 2007, it was held that the Commission may consider the application for information a complaint and direct the responsible officer to supply information.

    In the matter of Manipur State v. Chief Information Commissioner (A.I.R. 2010), it was held by the court that when a complaint is made about the failure to give the requested information by the State Public Information Officer within the time limit, the State Information Commission is expected to give the concerned parties sufficient opportunity and necessary steps in this, regard. It will ascertain whether there is sufficient justifiçation for not giving the request for information within the stipulated time.

    Related Post | Powers and functions of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission

    References

    • The RTI Story: Power to the People by Aruna Roy, 2018
    • Commentary on The Right to Information Act by J. N. Barowalia, 2010
    • Right To Information Law & Practice by R. K. Verma, 2010
    • Right to Information by K. B. Rai, 2020

    Sources

  • State Information Commission | Composition | Term and service | Removal

    State Information Commission | Composition | Term and service | Removal

    A State Information Commission (SIC) is an independent statutory body established under India’s Right to Information Act (RTI) on October 12, 2005. The SIC’s principal goal is to enhance transparency and accountability in the operation of state government departments and public authorities by enabling citizens’ access to information stored by these institutions.

    Provision made Under Section 15,16,17 of Right to infoemation act, 2005 related to State Information Commission with its Constitution, Term and service, Removal.

    Composition of State Information Commission

    According to Section 15(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the state government has been empowered to constitute the State Information Commission as a body. The state government may constitute a State Information Commissioin the name of the state concerned by giving notification in this gazette.

    According to Section 15 (2) of the Act, the State Information Commission includes –

    1. State Chief Information Commissioner;
    2. Not more than ten State Information Commissioners.

    According to Section 15 (3) of the Act, the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners will be appointed only after the approval of the recommendation of the committee made by the Governor. The committee made by the governor will have the following members –

    (i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;

    (ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and

    (iii) a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister.

    In the assembly where the opposition party leader has not been announced, the leader of the largest party against the government will be considered the leader of the opposition party for serial number two above.

    According to Section 15(4) of the Act, the State Chief Information Commissioner will undertake the general inspection, direction and management of the functions of the State Information Commission. The State Information Commissioner assists the State Chief Information Commissioner in the above work.

    Eligibility of State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner

    According to Section 15(5), the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in the following areas-

    • Law;
    • Science and technology;
    • Social service;
    • Management;
    • Jourgalism;
    • Mass media and administration.

    State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners should not have the following disqualifications According to Section 15(6)

    1. He shall not be a Member of Parliament or
    2. He shall not be a Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory, or
    3. He shall not hold any other office of profit or,
    4. He shall not be connected with any political party or,
    5. He shall not carry any business or
    6. He shall not pursue any profession.

    Head office of State information Commission Section 15 (7) of the Act relates to the headquarters of the State Information Commission. According to this Section, headquarters will be where the state government notifies in the official gazette. The State Information Commission has been empowered to establish its office anywhere in India with the opinion of the State Government.

    Term and service conditions of State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners

    According to Section 16(1) & 16(2) of the Act, the term of the State Chief Information Commissioner will be for a period of five years from the day he takes office or till the age limit of 65 years, whichever is earlier. He will not be eligible for reappointment but after vacating his post, he will be. eligible to be appointed as Chief Information Commissioner. If he is appointed as Chief Information Commissioner, he shall not hold office for more than 5 years including the tenure of both the Information Commissioner and the Chief Information Commissioner.

    Oath: As per Section 16 (3) the Chief Information Commissioner or other Information Commissioner shall-take an oath before the Governor or any person appointed by him for this purpose before assuming his office.

    Resignation: As per Section 16(4) the Chief Information Commissioner or other Information Commissioner can resign from his post at any time. He will sign the resignation letter in his handwriting while addressing the Governor.

    Salary and Allowances and service conditions of State Chief Information Commissioner and State Commissioners information

    As per Section 16(5) of the Act –

    The salary, allowance and service conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner will be the same as that of the Election Commissioner. The salary, allowance and service conditions of the State Information Commissioner will be the same as that of the Chief Secretary of the State Government.

    But after the appointment of ‘the above State Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner, salary, allowances and conditions of service will not be able to make a non-profitable change.

    In Section 16 (6) of the Act, the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners are also made available by the state government to the necessary officers and employees for efficient discharge of their functions. In the matter of Virendra Kumar v. P.S. Rana (A.I.R. 2007 Himachal Pradesh 63), it was held that the State Information Commission is a multi-member body. It is the discretion of the state government that it can appoint as many state information officers as it deems necessary, but these numbers will be minimum one and maximum up to ten. The State Government has no discretioi. not to appoint a State Election Officer other than the Chief Election Commissioner.

    In the matter of Sayyad Husain Abbas Rizwi v. State Information Commission (A.I.R. 2010 Patna 57), it was held that the State Information Commission has the power to make arrangements in the case of the Commission. Therefore, it is up to the discretion of the Chief Information Commissioner as to how the affairs of the Commission will be handled, for the prevention of any ambiguity about the status of other Information Commissioners who are also members of the Information Commission: it is provided that they are the Chief Information will assisi ihe commissioner.

    In the matter of Mansuri Dehradun Development Authority v. Chief Information Commissioner (A.I.R. 2010 Uttarakhand 114 Page 116-117) in this case, the word ‘and’ is used in conjunction with sections (a) and (b) of Section 15 of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, the State Information Commission Minimum should be a multi-member body with a Chief Commissioner and a maximum of 10 Information Commissioners. Therefore, the state Chief Information Commissioner cannot pass the order passed in the second appeal by sitting alone in the second appeal and it is void of authority.

    In the matter of D.D. Beenu v. Governor (A.I.R. 2011 Kerala 5 Page No. 12), it was held that the Governor has the immunity and protection under Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India in exercising his powers and therefore, objecting to the appointment made by him under Section 15 (3) of the Right to Information Act, he cannot be made a party as a respondent in the writ petition.

    Removal of State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner According to Section17 of the Act –

    17(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

    17(2) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.

    Right of Governor to remove State Chief Information

    Commissioner and State Information Commissioners from posts without investigation report of High Court Under Section 17 (3) of the Act, the Governor can remove the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners on the following grounds without investigation report of the Supreme Court. If State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner ;

    (a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

    (b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude; or

    (c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or

    (d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or

    (e) has acquired such fmancial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chie Information Commissioner or a State Informatio Commissioner.

    When will the Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner be deemed guilty of ‘misconduct’ ?

    According to Section 17 (4) of the Act, the Chiet Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioner will be guilty of misconduct on the following grounds, if he –

    1. is in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of India or

    2. participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company.

    Overall, the State Information Commission plays a critical role in ensuring that citizens have access to information held by public authorities and that public officials are held accountable for their actions.

    Related Post | State Information Commission

    References

    • Commentary on The Right to Information Act by J. N. Barowalia, 2010
    • Right to Information by K. B. Rai, 2020
    • Right To Information Law & Practice by R. K. Verma, 2010
    • The RTI Story: Power to the People by Aruna Roy, 2018

    Sources

  • Central Information Commission | Composition | Term | Removal

    Central Information Commission | Composition | Term | Removal

    The Central Information Commission (CIC) is an independent statutory body established under India’s Right to Information Act (RTI) on October 12, 2005. The CIC’s major goal is to enhance openness and accountability in the operation of the Central Government and its agencies by enabling citizens’ access to information stored by these institutions.

    The provision regarding the Central Information Commission has been made under Section 12-14 ‘in Chapter-3 of the Right to Information Act.

    Composition of Central Information Commission Under Section 12

    Provision has been made in relation to the formation of the Central Commission under Section 12 (1) of the Right to Information Act. It will be formed by notification in the Central Government Gazette. The Central Information Commission has been constituted for the exercise of the powers obtained under this Act and for the discharge of its assigned functions.

    Before coming to the specific provisions of Section 12, it would be relevant to say that the institution of information Commission created under the Act is the supreme body as far as the provisions of the statute are concerned. It is provided at two different levels, simultaneous and parallel, both at Centre and State levels. It is autonomous institution with an independent functioning under the Act. The highest decision making body under the Act is the ultimate level of disposal of applications received under the right to information. The decisions of this Commission are final and binding.

    Section 12 (2) of the Act provides that the Central Information Commission shall consist of

    (a) Central Information Commissioner and

    (b) No more than ten Central Information Commissioners, as deemed necessary.

    Process of Appointment

    A specific procedure of appointment of the Central Chief Information Commissioner and the Central Information Commissioner has been envisaged to give it an objective and transparent look. The Committee to recommend such appointments consists of the Prime Minister as the Chairperson, the leader of Opposition and one Union Minister as members. By assimilating the leader of Opposition in the Committee, an attempt has been made to raise these posts above the political interests and it indicates the need of a political consensus regarding such appointments.

    However, the ruling party has been allowed an upper hand over the opposition by raising the ratio of the Committee to two to one. If the decision is to be taken by the Committee by majority the leader of Opposition can just be reduced to the position of a helpless spectator. But keeping in view the senior status of the leader of Opposition his words and opinion normally carry weight and a consensus may be developed over the names to be recommended for such appointments, of course, out of the panel to be prepared by the Government. Thus the minimum level of decency may be maintained.

    Section 12 (3) of the Act states that the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Commissioners will be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee made up of (a) Prime Minister, who will be the chairman of the committee;

    (b) Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha;

    (c) A Minister of Union Cabinet nominated by the Prime Minister.

    Under Section 12 (4) of the Act, the functions of the Chief Information Commissioner have been explained. Accordingly, the Chief Information Commissioner, the Central Information Commissioner will general supervise, direct and manage the functions of the Central Information Commission.

    Other Information Commissioners will assist the Chief Information Commissioner in the above works. Apart from the above, it has also been said that he can exercise all the powers exercised by the Chief Central Information Commission under this Act in respect of all such works etc. by the Chief Central Information Commission.

    Section 12 (5) of the Act lays down the areas of specialization of the Chief Information Commissioner and other Commissioners. According to this, it is necessary to keep knowledge in the following areas-

    (a) Have knowledge and experience of law;

    (b) Have knowledge and experience in science and technology;

    (c) Be a social worker;

    (d) Have knowledge and experience of management;

    (e) Have knowledge and experience of journalism; (f) Proficient in the art of public relations;

    (g) Have extensive knowledge and experience governance by the administration.

    Section 12 (6) of the Act prohibits the Chief Information Commissioner and other Deputy Commissioners that they will not be associated with –

    (a) Must not be a member of parliament;

    (b) Must not be a member of State or Union Territor Legislature;

    (c) Should not hold any other office of profit;

    (d) Should not belong to any political party;

    (e) Not related to any business or profession;

    Section 12 (7) of the Act provides that the headquarters the Central Information Commission will be in New Delhi of but the Central Information Commission can establish its office at any place in India, if desired. For office, it will have to take the opinion of the central government.

    The Headquarter

    It provide for opening of offices of the Central Information Commission in other parts of the country apart from its head quarters at Delhi. This is formal provision but it takes care of the future requirement of the people. If at any time in future the work requirement so demands, keeping in view the public convenience, the offices of the Central Information Commission may be established at the required places. Such requirement may actually arise with the growing use of the right provided under the Act and accordingly with due approval of the Central Government additional offices may be established as provided therein.

    Term and service conditions of Chief Information Commissioner and entire commissioners (Sec. 13)

    Each information officer assumes office for a period of five years from the date on which he assumes his office or until he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. He will not be eligible for reappointment. But the Information Commissioner will be eligible to be appointed as the Chief Information Commissioner after his post becomes vacant. If he is appointed as Chief Information Commissioner, he shall not hold the post for more than 5 years including the tenure of both the Information Commissioner and the Chief Information Commissioner.

    Oath: The Chief Information Commissioner or other Information Commissioner takes an oath before the President or any person appointed by him for this purpose before assuming his office. The format of the oath is given in the First Schedule.

    Resignation: The Chief Information Commissioner or other Information Commissioner can resign from his post at any time. The resignation letter must be signed by him in his handwriting which will be addressed to the President.

    Salary and Allowances: Section 13(5) of the Act provides that the salary and allowances and other conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as those of the Chief Election Commissioner and those of the Information Commissioner shall be the same as those of the Election Commissioner.

    If the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner is getting a pension for his prior service under the Central Government or State Government at the time of his appointment, then the amount of pension received by him will be reduced from his salary. The Central Government will make available to such officers and employees as are necessary for the efficient compliance of the functions of the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioners. The salaries and allowances payable to these officers and employees and the terms and conditions of their service shall be such as may be prescribed.

    Removal of Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner According to Section 14 of the Act

    Section 14 of the Right to Information Act 2005 provides for the procedure to remove Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners from their posts and whereas Section 17 of the Act provides for the process of removal of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners. The basis of the said clauses is to strengthen the intention of the Legislature to provide independent status to the commissions.

    Section 14(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

    Section 14(2) The President may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the Chief Information Commissióner or Information Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the President has. passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.

    Section 14(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the President may by order remove from office the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner if the Chief Information Commissioner or a Information Commissioner, as the case may be

    (a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

    (b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the President, involves moral turpitude; or

    (c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or

    (d) is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or

    (e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the Chief Information Commissioner Information or a Commissioner.

    When will the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner be deemed guilty of ‘misconduct’?

    According to Section 14 (4) of the Act, the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioner will be guilty of misconduct on the following grounds,

    1. if he is in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of India or
    2. participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company.

    Overall, the Central Information Commission plays a crucial role in ensuring that citizens have access to information held by the Central Government and its agencies, and that public officials are held accountable for their actions.

    Related Post | Central Information Commission

    References

    • Commentary on The Right to Information Act by J. N. Barowalia, 2010
    • Right To Information Law & Practice by R. K. Verma, 2010
    • The RTI Story: Power to the People by Aruna Roy, 2018
    • Right to Information by K. B. Rai, 2020

    Sources