You are on page 1of 3

RTIFED/SICP/SUMMARY DISPOSAL2013/052/1011 10 NOVEMBER 2011 THROUGH E-MAIL

Mr. R.I. Singh Honble State Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab State Information Commission, SCO 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh -160017 Email: scic@punjabmail.gov.in Honble Chief Secretary to Government Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 1, Chandigarh 160001 Email: cs@punjabmail.gov.in

DELHI HIGH COURT QUASHES PRACTICE OF SUMMARY DISPOSAL OF COMPLAINTS BY CIC AND REMINDING THEM BACK
Honble Sir, In a recent landmark decision, Delhi High Court has quashed the practice of summary disposal of complaints by remanding the matter to First Appellate Authority / CPIO, without even hearing the complainant or deciding the complaint on merits. Nearly 8600 matters have been summarily disposed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in recent years out of which more than 4000 have been disposed of by Information Commissioners. As regards, the grievance expressed by the petitioner that the Commission, despite its attention being drawn to the decision of the Apex Court, while considering a complaint under Section 18 of the Act, continue to direct the concerned CPIO to provide information instead of deciding the complaint on merits. Court ordered it is expected that the Commission henceforth will decide the complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to

www.rtifed.com

provide the information which the complainant had sought. Of course, it would be open to the Commission to give such a direction while entertaining a second appeal under Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. This practice is also in vogue in the Punjab State Information commission and about 70% complaint cases are being disposed summarily, without going into the merits of the complaint and by relegating the same to the First Appellate Authority or even to the Public Information Officers. This Delhi High Court judgement will overturn the working in the commissions and now Commissions have to go into the all components of the complaint and decide on each one of them. This will also applicable on relieves sought by the complainant. Commissions have to dispose them one by one either in favour of the complainant or denying the same to the complainant, giving the reasons for the same. This judgment dwells on three points: a. The practice of summary disposal of complaints u/s 18 Now the Complaints made under section 18 of the Right to Information Act 2005 need to be taken up on merits and decision has to made on all contentious points raised as well as relief sought in the complaint. Only then the complaint can be disposed of by giving a reasoned judgement on each of them. b. Remanding the matter to First Appellate Authority / CPIO Now the commissioner (read Commissioners) will not be in a position to relegate the complaints preferred under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act 2005 to FAA directing him to decide it under Section 19(1) of Right to Information Act 2005. c. Relegation only in appeals under Section 19 that too on merit Only in Appeals made u/s 19(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005 can be relegated to the FAAs (and not to the PIOs as being done in many cases) purely on merit. If the remedy of Appeal under Section 19(1) has already been exhausted by the appellant, Commission has to give cogent reasons as to why the matter is being relegated to the FAA. In RTIFED opinion, Is the appellant makes an appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the FAA does not pass the order on the same within the time prescribed for it in the Right to Information Act 2005, it is safe to

This communication is sent through electronic media and as such does not require any signature.
Write at: 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh 160022 | Mobile +919-888-810-811 | Website: www.rtifed.com

Page 2 of 3

presume that the FAA has taken cognizance of the appeal but does not want to pass any order. It is also hoped that with this the hearing time will drastically reduce and the quality of decision making will improve, and with that the rate of penalizing the erring PIOs will go up, which will ultimately, result in better RTI regime, as the PIOs and the FAAs will start preforming as per law. From now onwards the work of the Information Commissioners will be under the public scanner for its quality and for deliverance of justice to the complainants. This Delhi High Court Judgement will be a yardstick to vouch the administration of justice at the commission.
RTIFED is yet to get the copy of the judgement. But what transpires from the

available information, it looks that the present practices in the Information Commissions have taken a severe jolt and Commission (read commissioners) have to revisit the provisions of the act and tie up their shoe laces to meet the new eventuality posed to them by Delhi High Court.
RTIFED hopes that the Punjab State Information Commission will take this

Judgement in good stride and the present practice in vogue will be shed immediately. All such Complaint cases where the matter has been relegated to FAAs or to the PIOs, will be reopened suo-motu and the matter shall be decided purely on the merit of each the cases. The soft copy of aforesaid Delhi High Court Judgement shall be delivered to the commission as soon as the same is received by the RTIFED. The receipt of this communication may please be acknowledged. Thanking you, Very cordially yours,

Surendera M. Bhanot
President RTIFED1 rtifed@gmail.com

RTIFED (formally known as RTI Activists Federation and founded by the legendary Advocate H.C. Arora) is a body looking after the rights of the RTI Applicants and keeping an eye over the happenings of the RTI related matters in various states. This communication is sent through electronic media and as such does not require any signature.
Write at: 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh 160022 | Mobile +919-888-810-811 | Website: www.rtifed.com

Page 3 of 3

You might also like