New Delhi, Dec 7 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has set asidethe Central Information Commission (CIC) order declaringministers as "public authorities" under the transparency law.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru overturned the March 12, 2016 orderof the CIC, declaring the "ministers in the Union Governmentand all State Governments as public authorities" under theRight to Information (RTI) Act.
"There was no occasion for the CIC to enter upon thequestion as to whether a Minister is a public authority underSection 2(h) of the Act. Further, directions issued by the CICare also wholly outside the scope of the matter before CIC.
"In view of the above, the order dated March 12, 2016cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside," it said.
The court's order came on the Centre's appeal against theCIC order.
The CIC directive that ministers were answerable underthe RTI Act would mean that people can directly send questionsto a minister by filing an RTI application which will beanswered by a public information officer in his office.
The case emanates from the application filed by a man onNovember 20, 2014 before Additional Private Secretary,Minister of Law and Justice seeking to know the time period ofminister or minister of state meeting the general public.
As the information sought was not received, he filed anappeal in January 2015, to which the Central PublicInformation Officer sent a response on January 16, 2015informing him that "no specific time has been given for themeeting of General Public with the Minister. However, as andwhen requests are received, appointments are given subject tothe convenience of the Minister".
Thereafter, the RTI applicant filed a second appeal withprincipal grievance that he had not received the informationsought for within the specified time and therefore, prayedthat certain action be taken against the concerned CPIO.
Presented with this appeal, the CIC went on to frame thequestions whether the minister or his office was a "publicauthority" under the RTI Act and whether a citizen has rightto information sought and whether the minister hascorresponding obligation to give it.
The questions were answered in the affirmative by the CICwhich also passed a string of directions and recommendations.
The CIC issued directions to the government to providethe necessary support to each minister including designatingsome officers or appointing some as Public InformationOfficers and First Appellate Authorities.
It had also directed that ministers be given an officialwebsite for suo motu disclosure of information with periodicalupdating as prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
The Commission had recommended that the oath of secrecywhich is required to be taken by the ministers be replacedwith the oath of transparency.
While hearing the appeal filed by the Centre, the JusticeBakhru observed, "this court finds it difficult to understandas to how the questions as framed by the CIC arise in theappeal preferred by the respondent no.2 (man)".
"The information as sought was provided to him and therewas no dispute that he was entitled to such information. Theonly grievance voiced by him was regarding the delay inproviding him with the information as sought by him.
"Thus, the only prayer made by respondent no.2 before theCIC was that action be taken against the CPIO and the FirstAppellate Authority under the provisions of the Act," it said,adding that "directions issued by the CIC were wholly outsidethe scope of the matter before the CIC". PTI PPS HMPARC.
This is unedited, unformatted feed from the Press Trust of India wire.