The Wire: New Delhi: Wednesday, August 22, 2018.
Questioning
the logic behind reconstituting a bench which was hearing the issue of bringing
political parties under Right to Information Act, Information Commissioner M.
Sridhar Acharyulu had in a protest letter sent to Chief Information
Commissioner R.K. Mathur earlier this year drawn a parallel with the issue of
allocation of cases by the Chief Justice as ‘master of the roster’ following a
press conference by four judges of the Supreme Court in January this year.
Details of
Acharyulu’s letter have emerged through an RTI application filed by the
Economic Times.The newspaper has reported that Mathur had constituted a new
bench after removing all the earlier members in August 2017 but as no hearings
took place since the two members retired, Acharyulu had objected to the move.
Though
earlier requests for inspection of the file pertaining to the case of political
parties being brought under the RTI Act used to be rejected on the ground that
the file was “under circulation”, the access was finally allowed this year.
‘Chief
Information Commissioner has no power to dissolve an existing bench’
The
documents, the report said, revealed that Acharyulu had written to Mathur in
February 2018 that “… 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,” the newspaper reported.
It further
said the central information commissioner questioned the rationale behind the
reconstitution of the CIC bench stating that “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,” the report further quoted Acharyulu as saying, while referring to the
protest by the four judges just a month before his letter.
Changing
of bench raises eyebrow as issue pertained to political parties resisting being
brought under RTI by Commission
The issue of
the bench being reconstituted by Mathur gained traction since the six national
political parties, who the 2013 order pertained to, had been resisting being
brought under RTI Act.
With the
parties neither complying with the direction of CIC nor challenging the order
in any court, a plea had been filed in the Commission against their
non-compliance with the order. While a three-member bench had been hearing the
matter since 2016, late in the year information commissioner Bimal Julka had
recused himself citing increased workload. Thereafter, Mathur had reconstituted
the bench.
CIC
insists chief did not violate rules by taking legal opinion
The newspaper
report also referred to the seeking of legal opinion by the Commission of
Additional Solicitor General of India Sanjay Jain on whether Mathur was correct
in constituting a larger bench after dissolving the earlier one. It said the
documents accessed during the inspection had revealed that CIC had paid Rs 1.10
lakh for this opinion. However, the ASG had had upheld Mathur’s decision to
reconstitute a new bench.
The report
had also noted that Rule 8 of the Law Officers (Conditions of Services) Rules
1972 states that 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.”
In response
to a questionnaire sent to Mathur, the ET report said, additional secretary at
the Commission, R.K. Singh, justified the taking of the legal opinion on the
basis of Section 12 (4) of RTI Act stating that “the Act clearly lays down that
the chief is responsible for management of the Commission.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
