2 Weeks Ago
Submission of some suggestions with regard to the recent order of CIC conceding to the non-compliance of its order by the Political Parties
With reference to the title mentioned above , I hereby submit some of my suggestions for a way out of the non-compliance of the order of the CIC by the political parties.
An appeal u/s 19(9) of the RTI act, 2005 can be filed by the complainants, before the CIC , to review its recent order conceding to the non-compliance of its order by the political parties along the following lines-
1. Sections 19(7), 19(8)(a), read with section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, permits the Central Information Commission to take appropriate legal steps to ensure the compliance of its order issued
within the scheme of the RTI act.
2. Section 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, empowers the CIC, to use such legal provisions as per the facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure the compliance of its orders, which has attained finality in law.
3. It has been held by the Honorable Supreme court in Sakiri Vasu vs State of UP in paras.18-22 that - " 18.It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution.
19. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. As Crawford observes in his Statutory Construction (3rd edn. page 267):-
If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an indeterminable process and the legislative intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission .
20. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein.
21. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. Thus in ITO, Cannanore vs. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430, this Court held that the income tax appellate tribunal has implied powers to grant stay, although no such power has been expressly granted to it by the Income Tax Act.
22. Similar examples where this Court has affirmed the doctrine of implied powers are Union of India vs. Paras Laminates AIR 1991 SC 696, Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd AIR 1996 SC 646 (at p. 656), Chief Executive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu 1996 (11) SCC 23, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1996 SC 3527, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society 2003 (2) SCC 412 (at p.432) etc."
4. Sections 166,174 of the IPC empowers the CIC to invoke such provisions to ensure the attendance of the respondents in compliance with its summons as well as to make the delinquent respondents accountable for the non-compliance of its orders.
5. Moreover, the CIC, did not invoke the powers conferred u./s 195(1)(a)(1) CrPC to file a compliant through its secretary / registrar to the jurisdictional magistrate court for the offences u/ss 166,174 IPC committed by the delinquent respondents.
6. Hence, the aforementioned facts can be highlighted in the appeal u/s 19(9) of the RTI act, 2005 before the CIC, to review its recent order conceding to the non-compliance of its order by the political parties.