Tribune India: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 23 August 2023.
Holding that first and second appellate authorities under the Right to Information Act (RTI) were violating judicial orders in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh by passing terse and unreasoned orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued five commandments to be followed for the proper adjudication of matters.
The respondent authorities were directed to come with a point-wise reply to the information sought. Justice Vikas Bahl directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana, and the Advisor to UT Administrator to circulate the judgment to “all authorities constituted under the Act”. Justice Bahl was hearing a petition filed by Rajwinder Singh against the State of Punjab and other respondents.
The directions are significant as they underscore the importance of transparency and accountability in the adjudication process under the RTI.
Justice Bahl said the court had found in more than a few cases that the two appellate authorities under the Act were passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and High Courts, and also in violation of the mandate of the Act.
It was, therefore, necessary to issue directions to the two appellate authorities to clearly specify the issues mentioned while adjudicating the cases.
Laying emphasis on the need to bring about clarity regarding the details sought, Justice Bahl said the authorities were required to clearly delineate the specific points on which the information was requested by the applicant in the plea before giving point-wise reply.
Justice Bahl also made it clear that the adjudicating authorities were obligated to deliver a categorical finding on whether the requested information for each point had been furnished.
If the authorities concluded that certain information was not to be supplied due to the provisions of the Act or any other reason, they had to record the stance and subsequently provide an evaluation of this issue after considering arguments from both the applicant and the authority concerned.
The authorities were also encouraged to include any other pertinent observations based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Passing cryptic orders
The court has found in more than a few cases that the appellate authorities under the Act are passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and High Courts, and also in violation of the mandate of the Act. — Justice Vikas Bahl
Holding that first and second appellate authorities under the Right to Information Act (RTI) were violating judicial orders in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh by passing terse and unreasoned orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued five commandments to be followed for the proper adjudication of matters.
The respondent authorities were directed to come with a point-wise reply to the information sought. Justice Vikas Bahl directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana, and the Advisor to UT Administrator to circulate the judgment to “all authorities constituted under the Act”. Justice Bahl was hearing a petition filed by Rajwinder Singh against the State of Punjab and other respondents.
The directions are significant as they underscore the importance of transparency and accountability in the adjudication process under the RTI.
Justice Bahl said the court had found in more than a few cases that the two appellate authorities under the Act were passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and High Courts, and also in violation of the mandate of the Act.
It was, therefore, necessary to issue directions to the two appellate authorities to clearly specify the issues mentioned while adjudicating the cases.
Laying emphasis on the need to bring about clarity regarding the details sought, Justice Bahl said the authorities were required to clearly delineate the specific points on which the information was requested by the applicant in the plea before giving point-wise reply.
Justice Bahl also made it clear that the adjudicating authorities were obligated to deliver a categorical finding on whether the requested information for each point had been furnished.
If the authorities concluded that certain information was not to be supplied due to the provisions of the Act or any other reason, they had to record the stance and subsequently provide an evaluation of this issue after considering arguments from both the applicant and the authority concerned.
The authorities were also encouraged to include any other pertinent observations based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Passing cryptic orders
The court has found in more than a few cases that the appellate authorities under the Act are passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and High Courts, and also in violation of the mandate of the Act. — Justice Vikas Bahl
.JPG)
.JPG)
