DoPT Circulars clarifying constitution of Benches in CIC & SIC

[karira]

DoPT has issued two similar circulars (one each in respect of CIC and SIC's) clarifying that inter alia that there is no provision in the RTI Act for constitution of benches.

It seems that the Department of legal affairs has also opined that under Sec 12 (4) and 15(4) the Chief Information Commissioners of CIC and SIC do not have any powers to constitute such benches.

The two circulars are attached to this post.

[karira]

It seems that at least the CIC has not taken lightly to this missive from DoPT.
It has asked DoPT to adhere itself to its authority under the RTI Act.
It is also conveying its views to the Government.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes02062009.pdf

[Atul Patankar]

As reported by Himanshi Dhawan, TNN at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 13 Jun 2009

NEW DELHI: After clashing on the issue of disclosure of file notings, the Central Information Commission (CIC) and DoPT are at loggerheads again. If the ministry is to be believed, all decisions taken by CIC and state commissions in the past three years are illegal. Unfazed by the DoPT's big brother attitude, the CIC has asked DoPT to keep off its turf.

In a recent circular, DoPT said appeals and complaints could not be heard by a single member or a double member bench but must be heard by the full commission.

Citing advice from the department of legal affairs, the DoPT communique said, "The matter has been examined in consultation with the department of legal affairs which has pointed out that the CIC or state commissions could function through benches only if there was a specific provision in the Act regarding constitution of benches." It went on to add that since there was nothing in the RTI Act about constitution of benches, the full commission should hear all cases.

The commission, however, is firm on its stand. "We, in a decision two years ago, made it clear that a single or double bench will hear cases. In fact, the department of legal affairs was taken into confidence on the decision and it has not been challenged in the court either," chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said. He added that the CIC would respond to DoPT.

Pointing out that the decision would not only serve to increase pendency and delay hearings further, Habibullah said, "Our rate of disposal has gone up drastically but the number of appeals has also increased so there is still a long wait before hearings for complaints can be held."

The rate of disposal has increased from 689 cases in October 2008 to nearly double at 1,495 in April 2009. But there are still 26,869 cases pending before the information watchdog.

Source: DoPT wants full CIC to hear all complaints, appeals - India - The Times of India

[sandeepbaheti]

If every appeal is heard by full commission, the pendency is likely to increase to 7-8 years.

[prbhat_gen]

logically also, what DoPT expect, that 8 IC (including chief IC) should hear each & every case. when in most cases there will be 1 appellant/complainant and at the most 2 from the PA.

funny.

[karira]

DoPT did not like the CIC issuing orders like this: CIC issues s'Show cause notice" to DoPT officers and threatens action under Sec 166, 187 188 of IPC

This is one way of getting back at the CIC.

The bone of contention seems to be Sec 13 of the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007:

13. Posting of appeal or complaint before the Information
Commissioner:-
(i) An appeal or a complaint , or a class or categories of appeals or
complaints, shall be heard either by a Single Information
Commissioner or a Division Bench of two Information
Commissioners, or a Full Bench of three or more Information
Commissioners, as decided by the Chief Information Commissioner
by a special or general order issued for this purpose from time to
time.
(ii) Where in the course of the hearing of an appeal or complaint or
other proceeding before a Single Information Commissioner, the
Commissioner considers that the matter should be dealt with by a
Division or Full Bench, he shall refer the matter to the Chief
Information Commissioner who may thereupon constitute such a
Bench for the hearing and disposal of the matter.
(iii) Similarly, where during the course of the hearing of a matter before
a Division Bench, the Bench considers that the matter should be
dealt with by a Full Bench, or where a Full Bench considers that a
matter should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the
matter to the Chief Information Commissioner who may thereupon
constitute such a Bench for the hearing and disposal of the matter.

[Atul Patankar]

As reported at zeenews.com on June 15, 2009

New Delhi, June 15: A controversial circular has triggered a war between Department of Personnel and Central Information Commission with the former questioning the decision of Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah to constitute benches for hearing RTI appeals.

The DoPT, which is a nodal agency to monitor the implementation of Right to Information Act in the country, has said the Act does not empower the Chief Information Commissioner to constitute such benches.

"The matter (constitution of benches by CIC and SICs) has been examined in consultation with the department of legal affairs, which has pointed out that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commissions could function through benches only if there was such a specific provision in the Act," the circular read.

When contacted Habibullah said the interpretation of the DoPT was wrong and adequate reply would be sent.

The circular advised the Commission to hear complaints and appeals as per provisions under section 2(b) of the RTI Act, which says that Central Information Commission shall consist of the Chief Information Commissioner and such number of Central Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary.

Habibullah, who is in Mumbai told PTI over phone that the matter was clearly dealt in a full bench hearing of the Commission in the case of Pyarelal versus Indian Railways in 2007 and as the DoPT has not challenged the same in the Court the decision remains a binding.

The issue of constitution of such benches was raised during the internal meeting of all the information commissioners where it was decided to advise DOPT to adhere to its authority under the RTI Act, 2005.

"The Central Information Commission is expected to work without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this (RTI) Act and it is needless to say that any other authority would implicitly include the Government and Public authority ," the full bench of the Commission had held in the Pyarelal versus Indian Railways case.

In its decision the Commission, quoting relevant sections of the RTI Act, has also held that "general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Commission vests in the Chief Information Commissioner and he may exercise all such powers which may be exercises or done by the CIC autonomously.

"We have cleared everything in this decision. They are not supposed to dictate us on the working of the Commission. If they had any issues regarding this decision, they could have reached court challenging it," Habibullah said.

Source: DoPT and CIC on war path over constitution of benches

[Atul Patankar]

As reported at business-standard.com on 16 June 2009

The government has held that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commissions cannot constitute benches for hearing matters, a point CIC does not agree with.

In a recent communication to the CIC, the Ministry of Personnel and Training has said that Right to Information Act does not empower the Chief Information Commissioner to constitute benches.

The ministry said that the matter of Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions taking decisions on complaints and appeals by constituting benches has been examined in consultation with department of legal affairs.

The legal affairs department, the personnel ministry said, has pointed out that the Central Information Commission or the State Commissions could function through benches only if there was a specific provision in the RTI Act for that.

The legal affairs department has further opined that provision of section 12 (4) of the RTI Act does not empower the Chief Information Commissioner to constitute benches.

"In view of this legal provision, it is advised that decisions on the complaints and appeals should be taken by the Central Information Commission as defined in section 2(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and not by the benches of the Commission," the communication said.

Source: Govt tells CIC not to have benches

[karira]

Originally Posted by prbhat_gen

logically also, what DoPT expect, that 8 IC (including chief IC) should hear each & every case. when in most cases there will be 1 appellant/complainant and at the most 2 from the PA.

funny.

As far as I know, there is no room available in the CIC where 8 IC's can fit in on one side of the table ! Even the room used for Video Conferencing has a raised platform with only 5 chairs. Maybe they need to empty out the room where all the D.O's sit or use the "Inward department" hall located in the old JNU Campus. But then, our member Arun Agarwal will complain that the water coolers in that room are leaking !

In APIC it is even worse. Only one IC can fit behind a table. The rooms are so small that they put some chairs around the walls for the PIO 's and appellants, which leaves no standing room.

[sandeepbaheti]

I have a couple of questions:

1) Sec 12 (2) states that CIC shall consist of the Chief Information Commissioner and

such number of Central Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary

Deemed necessary for what purpose? For thronging the hearing without adding any value? If they can't hold separate hearings then why are they needed in the first place? Why does the RTI Act has this provision of having upto 10 ICs?

2) Sec 12 (7) states:

The headquarters of the Central Information Commission shall be at Delhi and the Central Information Commission may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, establish offices at other places in India.

What happens if the CIC uses this provision to establish another office, say for example at Mumbai? If DoPT is to be believed, the whole of CIC will shift to Mumbai to hear cases there and then whole of it will return to Delhi for hearing other cases. I doubt if the architect of RTI Act intended such an acrobatic jiggling!