Discussion on SC judgement regarding appointments to CIC/SIC

[smbhappy]

IMPORTANT

Dear all,

This is a very significant Judgement of Supreme Court dated 13 September 2010 (today) in [SIZE=4]WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 210 of 2012 IN Namit Sharma vs. UOI, concerning RTI Act 2005 and it may change the course of the implementation of the RTI regime in India. This 107-page judgement contains as many paragraphs.

It defines Section 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24 and the role of different functionaries under the RTI Act 2005 from PIO to Information Commissioner.

I want every body go through it and bring out the salient feature for the benefit of all.

Judgement is available as attachment/can be downloaded from here:http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/downlo...tment-ics-241/

[smbhappy]

Sponsorer

In para 2 of the above judgement SC has stated

"With the passage of time, this concept has not only developed in the field of law, but also has attained new dimensions in its application.This court while highlighting the need for the society and its entitlement to know has observed that public interest is better served by effective application of the right to information. This freedom has been accepted in one form or the other in various parts of the world. This Court, in absence of any statutory law, in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr. [(1995) 2 SCC 161] held as under :
“The democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless unless the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express their views. One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce when medium of information is monopolized either by a partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchy organizations. This is particularly so in a country like ours where about 65 per cent of the population is illiterate and hardly 1 ½ per cent of the population has an access to the print media which is not subject to pre-censorship.”

[karira]

Changed title of the thread to make it a discussion oriented thread.

[smbhappy]

Para 78 & 79 are also significant and are reproduced below:

77. Let us now examine some other pre-requisites of vital significance in the functioning of the Commission. In terms of Section 22 of this Act, the provisions of the Act are to be given effect to, 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 this Act. This Act is, therefore, to prevail over the specified Acts and even instruments. The same, however, is only to the extent of any inconsistency between the two. Thus, where the provisions of any other law can be applied harmoniously, without any conflict, the question of repugnancy would not arise.

78. Further, Section 23 is a provision relating to exclusion of jurisdiction of the Courts. In terms of this Section, no Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal provided for under this Act. In other words, the jurisdiction of the Court has been ousted by express language. Nevertheless, it is a settled principle of law that despite such excluding provision, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court, in terms of Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, respectively, cannot be divested. It is a jurisdiction incapable of being eroded or taken away by exercise of legislative power, being an important facet of the basic structure of the Constitution. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra), the Court observed that the constitutional safeguards which ensure independence of the Judges of the superior judiciary not being available for the Members of the Tribunal, such tribunals cannot be considered full and effective substitute to the superior judiciary in discharging the function of constitutional interpretation. They can, however, perform a supplemental role. Thus, all decisions of the Tribunals were held to be subject to scrutiny before the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the orders passed by the authority, i.e., the Central or the State Information Commissions under the Act of 2005 would undoubtedly be subject to judicial review of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

[smbhappy]

Changed title of the thread to make it a discussion oriented thread.

I have no moderation authority to do it. Can you do it for me please.