Economic Times: New Delhi: Tuesday, August 21, 2018.
The issue of
bringing political parties under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI)
Act is threatening to spiral into a crisis similar to that in the Supreme Court
over bench-fixing at the Central Information Commission (CIC), the final appellate
authority for RTI.
The
transparency watchdog, which had brought political parties under RTI Act with a
controversial order in 2013, is now facing an internal battle with information
commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu openly questioning chief R K Mathur’s decision
to reconstitute a bench which was hearing the politically potent issue.
A complaint
had been filed before CIC for non-compliance of its order and a three-member
bench was hearing the matter since 2016. However, information commissioner
Bimal Julka recused himself citing increased workload in end of 2016.
Mathur
constituted a new bench removing all members in August 2017, but no hearings
have taken place as two members retired. This move has been questioned by
Acharyulu, who has openly challenged the motive behind it.
ET filed an
application under RTI Act seeking access to files pertaining to the case of
political parties being brought under RTI and know why no hearings had taken
place for almost two years. So far, CIC had rejected all requests for file
inspection under the pretext that the
file “is under circulation.”
Documents
accessed by ET through file inspection reveal a crisis within CIC over who
would hear the issue. Acharyulu wrote to chief Mathur in February 2018 saying,
“… the chief has no power under RTI Act to dissolve an already constituted full
bench of three information commissioners… If a new bench with new members is
constituted to hear the same matter which I and other members were already
hearing, I and entire Commission have a right to such information and reasons
thereof.”
Questioning
the motive behind reconstitution, Acharyulu’s letter says, “It would be a
judicial propriety for the chief to accord reasons to the Commission for
reconstitution of the whole bench…”
“You may have
noticed that the Chief Justice of India, who is the Master of the Roster, is
also making such decisions in a transparent manner, after the four members of
the collegium openly raised these issues. It is, therefore, important that all
such decisions are taken in the Commission meeting with all the members
present,” Acharyulu wrote.
What has
raised more questions within the Commission is the decision to seek legal
opinion of Additional Solicitor General of India Sanjay Jain on whether the
chief information commissioner is within his right to constitute a larger bench
after dissolving an already constituted smaller bench to hear complaints
against six national parties.
Documents
reveal CIC paid Rs 1.10 lakh for this opinion, which upholds Mathur’s decision
to reconstitute a new bench. Rule 8 of the Law Officers (Conditions of
Services) Rules 1972 says a law officer “shall not advice any ministry or
department of government of India or any statutory organisation or any public
sector undertaking unless the proposal or a reference in this regard is
received through the ministry of law and justice, department of legal affairs.”
ET sent a
written questionnaire to chief information commissioner R KMathur. In response,
CIC additional secretary R K Singh told ET, “The Commission would take a view
on the matter after all the information commissioners have perused the file,
which is being circulated.” When pointed out why the Commission sought legal
opinion on formation of benches in contravention of service rules, Singh cited
Section 12 (4) of RTI Act and Singh said, “The Act clearly lays down that the
chief is responsible for management of the Commission.”