Are judicial officers above information commission?

[sidmis]

Are judicial officers above information commission?
As Reported in Statesman News Service, BHUBANESWAR, May 18


Mr Janardan Samantray, a person seeking information under the Right
To Information Act has wittingly or unwittingly stirred a larger
debate on whether judicial officers are exempt or immune to notices
issued by the information commissioner.

The applicant Mr Samantray had sought information on number of under
trial prisoners, cases pending, acquittal and convictions. The
information officer of Khurda district judge rejected the application
of Mr Samantray who, then moved on first appeal to the district and
sessions judge court seeking the requisite information. Once again
his application was dismissed.

Mr Samantray then moved a second appeal as per provisions of the RTI
Act and presented his case before the state information commission.
He contested the rejection of his first appeal and alleged that he
had not been given reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Notices were issued to the office of the district judge, Khurda by
the Information commission to respond on 15 May for hearing the
matter, but nobody turned up, instead the commission was told that
the judicial officer had sought opinion and permission of the High
Court in this regard.

The issue that needs to be debated at the highest level is whether
judicial officers are exempt from appearing or responding to the
information commission.

This being the first such case in Orissa, the grey areas in this
regard stands to be tested. The High Court's response to the district
courts request for views on the matter is awaited. Meanwhile the
information commission has fixed 13 August to discuss the matter.

[slchowdhary]

The matter is of utmost importance to RTI activists. Those of us who are nearby to the applicant should extend all help and encouragement. And post updates. I have also made an appl to HC here. It is more than 20 days. No response. If any of you can search for list of PIO's and AA's if any listed by Raj High court of Judicature.

[opsharma]

Under no circumstances judiciary in person can be called by any SIC/CIC.This is not only decorum but constitutional.The judiciary, where administrative matters are concerned , can be/is represented by CPIO/deputy registrar as per rules . In case of personal corruption,there are different rules in force and approved by the parliament.
It is of utmost importance that we as RTI community discuss matters involving judiciary in an objective and devoid of emotion manner ,with due respect to the institution.
It is altogether different matter to discuss whether RTI is applicable to judiciary or not and in what all aspects ,and it has been decisively proved during writeups and debates even at highest level in these past few weeks that judiciary per se should be open to RTI.But summoning of judges by CIC/SIC ------NO WAY.

[sidmis]

The matter is of utmost importance to RTI activists. Those of us who are nearby to the applicant should extend all help and encouragement. And post updates.

Hello slchowdhary,
Don't worry. The ball is in the district judge's court. Literally !
He has to prove why he should not come under the Act.
It's between the commission & the designated PIO(Hon. Dist. Judge).

After being designated as a PIO he comes under the purview of the RTI Act. I don't think the SIC of Orissa is naive enough to issue summons to a sitting Judge in that capacity.

Also dont' forget that members of Judiciary are getting benefits through this act.

Info Act comes to HC judge's rescue

[opsharma]

Talking of being naive or ...........(sic) , what do you think of the other day, IC directing a mere PIO to lodge a complaint against an erring appellant,and immediately washing his hands off and wiping them clean (A Lady Macbeth act).
Here ,I respect Col's views- dont "Re employ" men of allegedly questionable integrity in these very important posts,in formative years,just to reward them for allegedly questionable services rendered by them to vested interests,during their active service.Otherwise the very concept of RTI being a powerful tool in the hands of a common man,is likely to start and rest on a very shaky foundation because executioners may allegedly have interests and empathy with entrenched parties which we the people are trying to expose.

[sidmis]

I don't think the SIC of Orissa is naive enough to issue summons to a sitting Judge in that capacity.

I was no way defending the the actions OSIC.

What I meant to say is that the SIC must have issued his summons to a PIO under the RTI Act and not to a sitting judge. I think he is competent enough for that. Various other SICs are doing it.

Here's one post by Karira.

PIO in District and session court Punjab and Haryana

Let's see how this matter evolves.

[opsharma]

That's what its going to be like,courts have appointed/are in the process of appointing PIOs,AAs who will represent the court issues. Fair enough.
From the above post by Karira I see the name of a a Lt Gen(retd) as IC in Punjab, this should gladden Col.
Thanks for healthy and professional discussion .

[karira]

Please note that the PIO and AA of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court (sometimes represented by their counsel) have regularly appeared before the CIC.

As sidmis pointed out , in this case, the summons have been issued to the PIO. And the PIO is bound to appear before the SIC.

Please read Sec 18(3) along with Sec 18(3)(a):

The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:—
a. summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;

Therefore, it is one judicial officer v/s another !

[opsharma]

yes,Delhi HC and, Supreme court I am aware of PIOs,AAs. But nobody during all these debates have commented on an aspect which I find Ominous and extremely disturbing with serious repercussion. Please go through: http://cic.gov.in/CIC-orders/WB-09052008-01.pdf
HC case was represented by an advocate/counsel , and which the counsel for HC claimed was permitted by CIC earlier also.This is the most unfortunate precedence and must not be alowed.Based on this precedence of permitting counsels for various Govt agencies ,instead of enforcing AAs and PIOs to represent and defend their actions,Information Commissioners unwittingly or otherwise are creating fear psychosis in the minds of a common citizens arguing their own cases.

[karira]

opsharma,

You are correct !
If I were the applicant/appellant, I would quote Sec 19(5) in the second appeal proceedings. Only the PIO can defend himself. A counsel can't defend the PIO.
At the most, he can assist the PIO during appeal proceedings.

19.
5. In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.

Further, penalties under Sec 20(1) can only be imposed on the PIO and not on any Counsel.

[slchowdhary]

It will be most unfortunate if counsels are allowed by govt. I am sure whole thing will be tain-tain fis. Advocates are masters of adjourments and misleading the courts. I give you an example. In a flimsy case, one quotes three supreme/high court judgments without quoting relevant portion or their photocopies. If the presiding officer is intimidated by status of advocate, he will simply accept his version without going through the judgments. If opponent asks for judgements, he will ask for time to produce it. In the next sitting even he will produce long judgements. Who will read these.
Moreover, these will become sources of obliging a particular set of advocates. We should do whatever is possible to stop this practice. Also CIC's should enforce discipline to the effect that arguments are strictly according to RTI act.