DNA: Mumbai: Sunday, October 16,
2016.
The recent
Bombay high court order of October 3 clears ambiguity of the administrative
power with the state chief information commissioner in the Maharashtra state
information commission. The order is also case law of sorts for all future
purposes and in case any state decides to have a bench.
Unlike
Maharashtra, there is no allocation of division bench. There is only allocation
of departments in other state commissions and at the central information
commission. Hence, the confusion in state. The HC order while explaining
section 15(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 states that the chief has all the powers to
ensure the superintendence, direction and management of the commission.
Citing a
Supreme Court judgement, the HC order states that on judicial side, the chief
justice is the first amongst equals and on the administrative side, the chief
justice is the master of the roster. It is, therefore, clear that though the
chief justice is the first among equals on judicial side, he is in fact unequal
on the administrative side. He alone can decide who should sit in the division
bench and who should sit single and what type of work a puisne judge should
deal with. Such type of power is certainly conferred on chief information
commission alone by section 15 (4) of the Right to Information Act. "The
Act states that commission is independent and no one can direct any one to
it," said Ratnakar Gaikwad, chief information commissioner whose transfers
led to the case being filed.
"According
to me there was no lack of clarity in the what the Act said. In fact
commissioners are not exercising them," said Shailesh Gandhi, former
central information commissioner. "It is good that the order is passed.
But one risk that arises due to this order is that it could be misused by the
chief in future," said Vijay Kumbhar, the activist who filed the public
interest litigation.
.JPG)
.JPG)
