Indian Express: New Delhi: Monday, August 14, 2017.
The
four-member bench constituted by Chief Information Commissioner R K Mathur to
adjudicate complaints that political parties are not adhering to the provisions
of the RTI Act has not been set up “properly and legally”, a complainant has
alleged. Activist R K Jain, on whose petition the Delhi High Court had directed
the CIC to decide the matter, has questioned the legality of the constitution
of the new bench, which replaced the three-member panel under Information
Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu.
The
three-member panel headed by Acharyulu was hearing the matter since July 22,
2016, until Bimal Julka, one of its members, decided to recuse himself citing
workload.
After his
recusal, Mathur had put the matter in abeyance. No member of the bench headed
by Acharyulu, which had heard the matter for nearly five months, has found a
place on the new panel.
Earlier,
Acharyulu was taken off cases pertaining to the Ministry of Human Resource
Development after he had ordered disclosure of academic records of the BA
course of Delhi University of 1978, the year when Prime Minister Narendra Modi
is understood to have passed the examination.
In his
objection submitted to the Commission, Jain, a lawyer, said the Chief
Information Commissioner has no power under the RTI Act to dissolve an already
constituted full bench of three Information Commissioners and form a fresh
bench without assigning or recording any reason.
He said that
none of the members on the new bench possesses legal qualification and
experience in the legal field which goes against the directives of the Supreme
Court in a separate matter related to the RTI Act. “The full bench of three
Information Commissioner, which has been dissolved, was presided by M S
Acharyulu who is a legally qualified person being LL.M. and with experience in
the legal field, while the present four-member bench constituted in place
thereof, does not comprise any member who possesses legal qualifications and
experience in the field of law,” Jain claimed.
It is against
the apex court directives, he added. Citing a Gujarat High Court verdict, he
said Chief Justice of the High Court cannot constitute a larger Bench unless
the matter is referred to him by a competent bench for it. He said none of the
members of the three-member bench has referred the matter back to the Chief
Information Commission, hence, he has no jurisdiction to constitute a further
Larger Bench of four Information Commissioners.
PM Modi Urges
People To Celebrate Independence Day As A 'Sankalp Diwas
“The
constitution of a four-member bench is not in the interest of justice because
large number of cases are listed before the said bench and if the bench is
equally divided, then matter has to be reheard. This may delay the disposal of
the present complaint…,” he said.
A full Bench
of the Commission had brought six national parties– the Congress, the BJP, the
NCP, the CPI, the CPM and the BSP under the ambit of the RTI Act on 3 June,
2013.
Jain had
filed a complaint after he did not get any response to his RTI applications
seeking to know the details of budget, constitution, elections etc in these
political parties. Seeing delay in hearing the matter by the CIC, he had
approached the Delhi High Court.
In 2014, the
Delhi High Court had directed the CIC to complete the hearing in the matter
within six months.