Indian Express: New Delhi: Saturday, June 11, 2016.
Delhi High
Court stayed a CIC order on Friday which has held that Ministers in the Union
and state cabinets were “public authorities” and liable to answer public
questions addressed to them under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Justice
Sanjeev Sachdeva, by an interim order, put on hold the operation of the March
12 decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had also
recommended to the Centre and states “to provide necessary support to each
minister, including designating some officers, or appointing Public Information
Officers and First Appellate Authorities.”
The direction
came on the plea filed by the Centre challenging the CIC’s March 12 order which
had also ordered that ‘oath of secrecy’ be replaced with ‘oath of transparency’
so that the minister respects the right to information of citizens and be
answerable and accountable to them.
The high
court while staying the order, issued notice to the complainant on whose plea
CIC had passed the direction and sought his reply by next date of hearing on
August 23.
Additional
Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Centre, argued that the
CIC had given recommendations which were beyond its jurisdiction. In its plea
filed through central government standing counsel, Jasmeet Singh, the
government had said that the CIC order was “bad in law and on facts” and that
the commission had “exceeded the mandate” given to it under the RTI Act.
The CIC order
had come on an application filed by Ahmednagar resident Hemant Dhag, who had
sought to know from the staff of the then Union Minister for Law and Justice
the scheduled time for people to meet the Cabinet Minister and Minister of
State. He was directed to seek time from the Minister himself.
The
government in its petition said that the information sought was furnished on
January 16, 2015, despite which an appeal was filed on April 14, 2015.
CIC in its
March 12 order had also directed the ministers in the Centre and states to put
in place RTI processing machinery in their respective offices and comply with
suo motu disclosure clauses of the RTI Act.
It had also
recommended implementation of recommendations of the National Commission to
Review the Working of the Constitution and the Second Administrative Reforms
Commission.