9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 272 - Commission - Indian LawsRTI Application - Appellant had sought the copies of the relevant papers concerning the appointment of a particular judge as the President of the CESTAT - desired information denied by referring to the stay granted by the Division Bench Division Bench of the Delhi High Court against similar orders passed by the CIC in the past - Held that - There is no doubt that, on merit, there is no reason why the desired information should not be disclosed now that the decision of the ACC has been already implemented and the matter is complete and over. The information should also be disclosed because part of the Cabinet papers, namely, the correspondence made in regard to the said appointment, has already been provided to the Appellant. In view of all this, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the copies of the file noting from the relevant file within 10 working days of receiving this order.
Issues:
Request for disclosure of Cabinet papers concerning the appointment of a judge as the President of CESTAT under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Denial of file noting portion of the papers by the CPIO based on exemption under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. Appeal against the denial upheld by the Appellate Authority citing a stay granted by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a different matter. Argument on selective disclosure by the Department and discrimination against the Appellant. Consideration of whether disclosure should be allowed despite the stay by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Analysis: The Appellant requested copies of relevant papers regarding the appointment of a judge as the President of CESTAT, including file noting and correspondence, under the RTI Act. The CPIO allowed inspection but denied the noting portion, citing exemption under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, considering them as Cabinet papers. The Appellate Authority upheld this decision, referring to a stay granted by the Delhi High Court in another case. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that the information should not be denied based on a stay in a different case, highlighting differences between the cases and alleging selective disclosure by the Department. The CPIO mentioned the Department's appeal to the High Court against disclosing similar papers in other cases, where a Division Bench had stayed the CIC orders, suggesting waiting for the High Court's decision before disclosure. The Central Information Commission analyzed the situation, emphasizing the RTI Act's provision to disclose Cabinet papers post-decision implementation. As the appointment was completed with the issuance of the order, the related papers should be made public. The Commission deliberated on allowing disclosure despite the High Court's stay, considering potential legal implications and public interest, ultimately directing the CPIO to provide the Appellant with the file noting within a specified timeframe. The Commission acknowledged the Appellant's argument on merit and discretion of the public authority regarding legal actions, emphasizing the completion of the decision process and the partial disclosure of Cabinet papers to justify the ordered disclosure. The decision was made based on the completion of the appointment process and the public interest in accessing relevant information, despite the pending legal stay issue. In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal by directing the CPIO to provide the requested file noting to the Appellant within a specified timeframe, highlighting the importance of transparency and access to information in governmental decisions. The order was made considering the completion of the appointment process and the public interest in accessing relevant information, despite the pending legal stay issue.
|
