Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Satyananda Mishra: CIC/WB/A/2010/000758 SM

    Uploaded by

    Satish Mishra
    1. The appellant had sought information from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat regarding the consideration of a parliamentary standing committee on the implementation of the Right to Information Act. 2. The CPIO had provided some information but not the committee's recommendations, citing that disclosure could breach parliamentary privilege since the findings had not been presented to Parliament. 3. The CIC directed the CPIO to disclose the committee's findings within 10 days, reasoning that information cannot be indefinitely withheld just because the authorities chose not to act on the recommendations for over three years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Satyananda Mishra: CIC/WB/A/2010/000758 SM

    Uploaded by

    Satish Mishra
    64 views3 pages
    1. The appellant had sought information from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat regarding the consideration of a parliamentary standing committee on the implementation of the Right to Information Act. 2. The CPIO had provided some information but not the committee's recommendations, citing that disclosure could breach parliamentary privilege since the findings had not been presented to Parliament. 3. The CIC directed the CPIO to disclose the committee's findings within 10 days, reasoning that information cannot be indefinitely withheld just because the authorities chose not to act on the recommendations for over three years.

    Original Title

    CIC_WB_A_2010_000758-SM_M_57894.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The appellant had sought information from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat regarding the consideration of a parliamentary standing committee on the implementation of the Right to Information Act. 2. The CPIO had provided some information but not the committee's recommendations, citing that disclosure could breach parliamentary privilege since the findings had not been presented to Parliament. 3. The CIC directed the CPIO to disclose the committee's findings within 10 days, reasoning that information cannot be indefinitely withheld just because the authorities chose not to act on the recommendations for over three years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    64 views3 pages

    Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Satyananda Mishra: CIC/WB/A/2010/000758 SM

    Uploaded by

    Satish Mishra
    1. The appellant had sought information from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat regarding the consideration of a parliamentary standing committee on the implementation of the Right to Information Act. 2. The CPIO had provided some information but not the committee's recommendations, citing that disclosure could breach parliamentary privilege since the findings had not been presented to Parliament. 3. The CIC directed the CPIO to disclose the committee's findings within 10 days, reasoning that information cannot be indefinitely withheld just because the authorities chose not to act on the recommendations for over three years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Central Information Commission, New Delhi

    File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000758-SM
    Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
    Date of hearing
    Date of decision
    :
    :
    3 June 2011
    3 June 2011
    Name of the Appellant : Shri Vihar Durve
    573/1, Pavan Vihar,
    Near Sai Pump, J M Road,
    Pune 411 004.
    Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
    Parliament House Annexe,
    New Delhi 110 001.
    The Appellant was present along with Shri Venkatesh Nayak.
    On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
    (i) Shri A.K. Singh, Director & CPIO,
    (ii) Shri Shashi Bhushan, Joint Director
    Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
    2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their
    submissions.
    3. The Appellant had sought a number of information in respect of the
    consideration by a Parliamentary Standing Committee about the
    implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Unfortunately, the
    Appellant had referred to the said committee under a wrong nomenclature.
    Although the CPIO had provided a number of information, he had not given any
    CIC/WB/A/2010/000758-SM
    details about the recommendations of the said Committee. Later, the Appellate
    Authority took the view that since the findings of the Committee had not been
    placed before Parliament, disclosure of the desired information could amount to
    the breach of privilege of Parliament and was, therefore, exempt from
    disclosure in terms of Section 8 (1) (c) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
    4. During the hearing, the Respondents reiterated the same argument. The
    Appellant, however, submitted that this matter had come before the Committee
    way back in 2008-2009, that is, nearly 3 years back and if the authorities chose
    not to place the recommendations of the Committee before the House
    concerned, the information could not be denied indefinitely to the citizens.
    There is a lot of merit in this argument. When any Committee set up by any
    public authority is assigned a task, the findings of that Committee are supposed
    to be acted upon within a timeframe. It cannot be anybody's argument that just
    because the authorities decide not to act on the findings of the committee, it
    could be held back from the citizens by invoking one or the other provisions of
    the Right to Information (RTI) Act for an indefinite period. No one has argued
    that the desired information is exempted under any other provisions of the Right
    to Information (RTI) Act; the only argument which has been offered is that the
    disclosure of this would amount to the breach of privilege of Parliament.
    5. Parliament of India is the highest lawmaking body. It has to be a model
    in implementing the laws it makes. The information which the Appellant has
    sought is in the possession of the public authority. Just because the competent
    authority has not decided to place it before Parliament even after a lapse of
    about three years, it cannot indefinitely hold it back from the citizens. We,
    therefore, direct the CPIO to disclose the findings of this Committee within 10
    CIC/WB/A/2010/000758-SM
    working days from the receipt of this order.
    6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
    7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
    (Satyananda Mishra)
    Chief Information Commissioner
    Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
    application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
    Commission.
    (Vijay Bhalla)
    Deputy Registrar
    CIC/WB/A/2010/000758-SM

    You might also like