Right2Information

Right to Information – Master key to good governance

RTI Act applicability to judiciary // RTI compliance by the Supreme Court // RTI activists have already served a legal notice on the high court

Posted by rtiact2005 on October 12, 2006

RTI Act applicability to judiciary

The judiciary headed by the Chief Justice of **India** and chief justices of high court is competent authority under section 2(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2(e)  “competent authority” means­

(i) the Speaker in the case of the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a state or a Union territory having such Assembly and the Chairman in the case of the Council of States or a Legislative Council of States”;

(ii)  The Chief Justice of **India** in the case of the *Supreme* Court;

(iii) The Chief Justice of the High *Court* **in the case of the High Court;

(iv) The President or the Governor, as the case may be, in the case of other authorities established or constituted by or under the Constitution”;

(v) The administrator appointed under article 239 of the Constitution;

Every competent authority can frame its own rules under Section 28:

28. (1) The competent authority may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2)  In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(i)  the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;

(ii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;  (requisition fee)

(iii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 7; (cost of
information)

(iv)  any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.­

II

RTI compliance by the Supreme Court

The official web site of the Supreme Court of India gives the names of the public information officer and the appellate authority designated in compliance of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Quoting the entry from

http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/RTIACT.htm*
(last updated on September 21, 2006)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The following officers have been appointed as Central Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority for Supreme Court of India under Right to Information Act.

S. Chatterjee
Additional Registrar(Admn.)
Central Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Tel. No.23381555/ Fax No.23384536
e-mail:supremecourt@nic.in

Shri Hemant Sampat
Registrar (Admn.)
First Appellate Authority
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Tel. No.23385265/ Fax No.23384536
e-mail:supremecourt@nic.in

III

RTI activists have already served a legal notice on the high court
On April 27, Mumbai-based right to information activist Shailesh Gandhi, convener of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), and Sanjiv Chimbulkar, served a legal notice on the chief justice and Registrar General of the Bombay High Court contending, among other points:

That under Section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted by or under the constitution. Section 2(e) which defines “competent authority” as under:

the Chief Justice of India in the case of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of a High Court and

Section 2(f) defines “information” reads as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body
which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

That Shailesh Gandhi submitted an application dated December 13, 2005 to Public Information Officer of the Bombay High Court requesting for the information of adjournments taken place during the last two years, particularly the adjournments for more than six months with reasons. He was advised by letter dated January 27/30, 2006 that such information can be collected from the official web site of the High Court.

Since no such information was available on the official website of the High Court, on February 14, 2006 Gandhi made a complaint to the Chief Information Commissioner of Maharashtra under section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, on February 28, 2006 he addressed a letter to Chief Justice of Bombay High Court requesting for designation of Public Information Officers and highlighting recognition of
“right to information” as fundament right being built in Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution and emphasizing its importance in a democratic country like ours.

That Sanjiv Chimbulkar made an application dated March 22, 2006 to the Registrar, Thane District Court, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 asking for certain information as mentioned therein. The Registrar Thane District Court vide his letter bearing No. Judl/ 2197/ 2006 dated March 24, 2006 said that he had been directed by District Judge, Thane, to inform that the Bombay High Court vide its circular dated February 15, 2006 has issued the directions on this subject that the matter of supply information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and its applicability to judicial fora is
under active consideration both of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

He was also informed on March 24, 2006 that all such applications are to be kept pending sine a die till further communication from Bombay High Court.

That the circular dated February 15, 2006 issued by the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court “is violative of the fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and also is in violation of the law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court being violative of the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005.”

That “the Bombay High Court has failed to comply with its obligations under Section 4, Section 5 and Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the impugned circular dated February 15, 2006 issued by No. 2 is illegal and ultra vires.”

Advertisements

6 Responses to “RTI Act applicability to judiciary // RTI compliance by the Supreme Court // RTI activists have already served a legal notice on the high court”

  1. Dear Sir/Madam
    Each one of us look towards Judiciary & expect Justice?
    What should one do when Juduciary fails to deliever the judgement & sits on the file for nothing?
    Pl.reply

  2. EMR Chowdary

    Now Indians are in a doubt that how all the departments of central and states making their own procedure in implementing different law in implementing the RT I act. Any law made by Indian parliament is applicable same to same in entire India or not. please clear my doubt.

  3. empresas de coaching…

    […]RTI Act applicability to judiciary // RTI compliance by the Supreme Court // RTI activists have already served a legal notice on the high court « Right2Information[…]…

  4. madhav p kukday,40B,visawa, W.H.C.Rd, Tilaknagar,Nagpur-440 010. said

    Right to information is for or should
    be for every public officer including
    the judges of every level.It gives an
    oppurtunity to exhibit the transparency
    simulteniously it exposes to the guilt
    if committed by public officer while in
    work or on retirement.If the High Court
    judge/high rancked public officer commit
    or defy the civil court oreder
    using is protective posission on his
    retirement or does not furnish correct
    information of pending litigation in the
    declaration at the time of elevation/
    promotion the post retirement benit can
    be forfetted on seeking requisit
    information under the Act.
    form of declaration for elevation

  5. I just couldn’t leave your site before suggesting that I extremely enjoyed the usual info an individual provide in your guests? Is going to be back incessantly in order to inspect new posts

  6. Sanjay K Dixit , Advocate, Davangere, Karnataka said

    Dear Sir/ Ma’am, With regards to “M.V.C 216/2011” as the defense Advocate for Respondent1, & Respondent2, that I, bring you the notice of the authority is that an honorable Principal Senior (Div), & CJM Court, Davangere, which has been delivered a irrelevant Order on an I.A.09/2014 as filed from Respondent-3 (United India Insurance Co.,Ltd., Davangere), where when sought for Certified Copies, along with my raised Objections, then found that the said honorable Court have accepted through by the Respondent-3 I.A.09/2014 have been consisted with wrong cause title mentioning mallesh naik V/s. Abdul Khuddus, & others, instead of Mahesh Naik V/s. Abdul Kuddus, & others, after then I’ve sought the relevant I.A.09/2011 & my Objection to it, has been sought under the “R.T.I Act 2005” where again that said Court ‘C.M.O’ & their honorable Judge substantiated same wrong bearing Cause title mallesh naik V/s. Abdul Kuddus, & others, instead of Mahesh Naik V/s. Abdul Kuddus, & others, & also lied under R.T.I Act.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: