Quote:
Originally Posted by colnrkurup  It is defenitely a legal obligation. Section 20 of the Act is very specific that " it shall impose " and not " it may impose ". " Shall " means do something inevitable, something that will take place, denoting an obligation or direction to do some act. Please note that " should " is the past tense of " shall ". As per the recent Supreme Court decision (not in RTI case), " Failure to give reasons is denial of justice". Therefore it implies that it is obligatory on the part of the CIC/SICs to give reasons for not impossing penalty when the PIO is proved guilty. The main problem is the non-accountability of CIC/SICs. Who will bell the cat ? |
Thanks. Can you please provide the citation of the Supreme Court judgement you referred? As regards to the non-accountability of the
CIC /SICs, we can always approach the High Courts. Secondly, the envirounment has to be created for the removal of the Chief IC and Information Commissioners. Although this is not a simple task, but intiatives are required to be taken.