SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

0 views
Skip to first unread message

C K Jam

unread,
Dec 12, 2011, 11:15:25 PM12/12/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.

The full judgment is attached.

The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?

Beats me completely.

RTIwanted.
Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf

sarbajit roy

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 8:38:22 AM12/13/11
to HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005
Dear Mr Jam

I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
Information Commissioner.
The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>

PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
penalty u/s 20.

Sarbajit

>  Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf
> 231KViewDownload

sandeep kumar

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 8:48:56 AM12/13/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
I may be wrong but I firmly believe that the case was not pursued
properly by the lawyers of the commission.
Read section 18(1):
Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint
or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application
for information or has not furnished information within the time
specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject
of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees
each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five
thousand rupees:

It clearly says that the commission while hearing complaint/appeal
shall impose penalty till information is furnished.

Please comment whether I am wrong or right.


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

jaiprakash narain

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 9:19:53 AM12/13/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
It is shocking nonsense.

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 10:48:05 AM12/13/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
The decision of the Hon’ble Court is not clear on the use of Section 18 of the RTI if appeal is filed in pursuance of section 7(2) on the failure of the PIO to give decision on the request for information.  The decision has failed to clarify whether both the options can be exercised simultaneously or only one can opt for one option either u.s. 18 (Complaint) or 19 (Appeal).  If that is so, one will have to to choose between punative action on the PIO or getting the information from the public authority.
 
However, good decision has been made in para 45 which says that organizations cannot be exempted retrospectively. (from back date.)
 

From: C K Jam <rtiw...@yahoo.com>
To: "humja...@googlegroups.com" <humja...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 9:45 AM

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 11:08:31 AM12/13/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sarab,
 
I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.
 
This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity, sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you. 
 
Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members on my aforesaid comments.

RAKESH GUPTA

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 9:17:04 PM12/13/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
dear sirs, 
this decision is based on basis that  CIC appeal rules( para 35 the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 )are still valid.
however, this facts is wrong.
It is better, to file complaint cum appeal with the commission.
with regards 
rakesh gupta

Manu

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 11:51:49 PM12/13/11
to HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005
Mr Jam,

The Apex Court has only pointed out that Section 18 can't be evoked to
order disclosure of information. This does not mean the information
can't be disclosed under the RTI Act.

As the judgment reads: "The nature of the power under Section 18 is
supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an
appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in
receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek
redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following
the procedure under Section 19."

Regards,
Manu

On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

sarbajit roy

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 1:49:16 AM12/14/11
to HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005
Dear MK

Since my email was addressed to Jam, it is better that he comments.
I have no illusions about my own popularity in this group.

Sarbajit

On Dec 13, 9:08 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Sarab,
>
> I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.
>
> This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity, sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you.
>
> Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members on my aforesaid comments.
>

> ________________________________
> From: sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>

sarbajit roy

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 1:54:08 AM12/14/11
to HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005
Re: not furnishing information.

When the PIO issues a further fee computation AND the applicant
deposits the further fees and THEN if the PIO does not provide the
information within the time calculated under section 7 factoring in
all the PROVISOS which stop the 30 days clock ONLY THEN is information
said to be "not furnished".

In the SC case, the PIs did not reply. So the only course in terms of
Act is section 19 first appeal.

Sarbajit

On Dec 13, 6:48 pm, sandeep kumar <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I may be wrong but I firmly believe that the case was not pursued
> properly by the lawyers of the commission.
> Read section 18(1):
> Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
> Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint
> or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information
> Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
> has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application
> for information or has not furnished information within the time
> specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
> request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
> misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject
> of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
> information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees
> each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
> however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five
> thousand rupees:
>
> It clearly says that the commission while hearing complaint/appeal
> shall impose penalty till information is furnished.
>
> Please comment whether I am wrong or right.
>

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 5:13:11 AM12/14/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Dear Roy,
 
When your mail was addressed to Shri Jam, why this was sent to all other members? 
It should have been sent to him directly.  He (Jam) has behaved in a dignified manner by not reacting to your mail so far. 

Chitta Behera

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 5:26:45 AM12/14/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
You are right in quoting the relevant extract to prove that the apex court should have noted the word 'complaint' mentioned alongside of 'appeal'. But you have inadvertently mentioned Section 18(1), in place of Section 20(1). Thanks for the quotation. 
Chitta Behera 


From: sandeep kumar <drsan...@gmail.com>
To: humja...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Chitta Behera

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 7:07:09 AM12/14/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
The apex court in its Judgement of 12 Dec 2011 on the case [CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-32769/2010) in the matter of Chief Information Commr. and Another ...Appellant(s) - Versus - State of Manipur and Another ...Respondent(s)] has committed errors in fact and judgement as well. 

First, as regards the factual error. The para 35 in the Judgement reads, "The procedure for hearing the appeals have been framed in exercise of power under clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act. They are called the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005". As a matter of fact, the State of Manipur or for that matter Manipur Information Commission is not guided by Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, but by
THE MANIPUR INFORMATION COMMISSION (APPEAL AND PROCEDURE) RULES 2006 notified 
28th December, 2006 (http://maninfocom.nic.in/notice_rules.html ), where there is provision for both 'appellant or complainant, as the case may be'. 

Second, as regards the judgmental error. Para 37 of the Judgement reads, "We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two
different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other". But a careful reading of Section 19 (8) which has been quoted at length in the Judgement at Para-34 would reveal that the said Section has also talked about 'complainant' (Section 19-8b) meaning a person who has made a 'complaint' under Section 18. Moreover, Section 19(9) also refers to 'complainant'. Repeated use of the word 'complainant' in Section-19 implies that the Commission would 'in its decision' do similar kind of justice to an Appellant of Section 19 or Complainant of Section 18 including 'providing access to information' (Section 19-8a-i). 

Besides, Section 20(1) and (2) which deals with 'Penalties' entrusts the Commission with the power to impose penalty on the Public Information Officer 'at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal'. If we are to assume as the apex Court does, that 'The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure", the question arises, can the Commission impose any 'penalty' in the case of a 'complaint' without following any appellate procedure (notice to and hearing of parties etc.)? Certainly not. The above judgement is a case of oversight by the apex court, no more and no less. 
Chitta Behera
   



From: RAKESH GUPTA <sne...@gmail.com>
To: humja...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

C K Jam

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 7:38:09 AM12/14/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
I always "Act", never "React".

RTIwanted


From: M.K. Gupta <mkgup...@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humja...@googlegroups.com" <humja...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 8:20:27 AM12/14/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
U have not minced words while giving your reaction. Every body does not possess that courage.  This does not mean that every body feels that it is a shocking nonsense but if some body else feels like that, may not gather courage to display his feelings.
 
The right course will be to go to the SC again in review etc. on the ground of error of facts and law.

sarbajit roy

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 11:24:34 AM12/14/11
to HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005
Dear MK

1) The right course is to do nothing. The judgment is perfectly sound
and should be appreciated.

2) The wrong course.is to file a curative petition.

3) The perfect course is to assail the bloody Union of CICs+SICs. The
way they work is that CIC and a few SICs like Karnataka, AP, P&H etc
have "federated" to muck up the RTI Act. The CIC doesn't show its hand
because most of their cases get appealed to Delhi High Court & SC with
strong opponents (like immodest me) who don't allow them to get away.
But, if some poor appellant from Manipur who cant afford a senior
advocate in SC or come in person for every hearing is the opponent,
then the RTI movement / Act gets screwed.

Unfortunately, we (the opponents) never unite, so "they" keep on
getting gift horses like this from the SC.

Sarbajit

On Dec 14, 6:20 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> U have not minced words while giving your reaction. Every body does not possess that courage.  This does not mean that every body feels that it is a shocking nonsense but if some body else feels like that, may not gather courage to display his feelings.
>
> The right course will be to go to the SC again in review etc. on the ground of error of facts and law.
>

> ________________________________

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 10:24:28 PM12/14/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
In this case the appellant to SC was Manipur State Information Commission (er) and naturally the govt. advocate must have fought the case.  Such lapses, if our presumption  is correct, like brining full facts to the knowledge of SC like provisions of section 18 that information should also be provided under this section, are not abnormal     

Without bringing the errors in the judgment to the knowlege of SC, how these error can be plugged? In such circumstances, such errors will become rules and every public authority will refuse to give information if complaint is filed.

However, filing complaint cum appeal may be a via-media as suggested by one enlightened member.


Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 9:54 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
----- Original Message -----

Sarbajit Roy

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 10:44:24 PM12/14/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Why should we assume that the SICs / CIC is expected to defend their orders.
Already the Delhi High Court has held that they are to be exempted
from being named as parties in such Writs.

It is only your presumption that the CIC can order disclosure of
information in complaint case. If that be so then where is the need
for appeal ? Please don't trivialise the complaint powers of the CIC
and bring it down to the level of appeals. You are being very foolish
through your ignorance and misleading group members on this vital
point.

Sarbajit

capt beniwal

unread,
Dec 15, 2011, 6:34:30 AM12/15/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Can some one explain in simple language without using legal words and jargon,   what the SC order/judgement means to a common person.  thanks. rgds. 


From: C K Jam <rtiw...@yahoo.com>
To: "humja...@googlegroups.com" <humja...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 6:08 PM

sandeep kumar

unread,
Dec 16, 2011, 1:23:32 AM12/16/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Dear sir,
Let me explain:
lets us suppose you filed an RTI application, the PIO did not reply.
YOu file a complaint to the commission. The commission cannot order
PIO to supply information. The commission has powers to impose penalty
or recommend disciplinary action only on complaint.
Now your question may be as to how to get information then.
YOu need to file first appeal against the PIO. The appellate authority
will get you information. Now if you are not satisfied with the AA or
you do not get any reply to first appeal, move the commission for
second appeal. Then the commission can get you information and can
also impose penalty/recommend disciplinary action.
Please call me (if you wish) if i am unable to make you understand.
regards
sandeep

mukund parikh

unread,
Dec 17, 2011, 4:06:57 PM12/17/11
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Respected Sarabajit Singh,
I agree with comments of Shri M.K. Gupta. My sincere appeal to you being a highly learned, elderly citizen and doing yeoman services to society, please respects others' feelings too and don't hurt others by avoidable words, statements etc. It is not befitting to your status surely (not very particularly herein matter). Who knows even if Jam is selected (may be with some limitations or not matching your standards) might do better than many past/ present CICs/ SICs. It is indisputable fact that in-spite of 6 years what is the fate of real implementation of RTI Act all over India. You nicely talk about GIta, Upnishads etc but I wonder why you have to knowingly or unknowingly hurt others feeling at any time.Please do not take this my suggestion as personal or with any hard feelings but it is due to my  respect for you.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Mukund Parikh /Mumbai     
 -- On Tue, 13/12/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgup...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

robby sharma

unread,
Dec 20, 2011, 6:45:35 AM12/20/11
to humjanenge google groups
Sir I have not received the Supreme Court Judgment regarding Section-18 please send to me 


Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:36:57 +0530
From: mk...@yahoo.co.in

sarbajit roy

unread,
Dec 20, 2011, 8:05:22 AM12/20/11
to HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005
Hi Robby

Visit
https://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/b65bed30b3b425b4

Goto the very first post in this thread (by C.K.Jam)
Download the file from the last line in that post

Sarbajit

On Dec 20, 4:45 pm, robby sharma <sharmaro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sir I have not received the Supreme Court Judgment regarding Section-18 please send to me
>

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages