9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information. This Court, therefore, directs the appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information within a period of four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory procedure by the appellants, the same should be considered on merits by the appellate authority without insisting on the period of limitation. By virtue of the notification dated 15-10-2005 issued under Section 24 of the Act, the Government of Manipur has notified the exemption of certain organizations of the State Government from the purview of the said Act. This Court makes it clear that those notifications cannot apply retrospectively. Apart from that the same exemption does not cover allegations of corruption and human right violations. The appeals which the respondents have been given liberty to file, if filed within the time specified, will be decided in accordance with Section 19 of the Act and preferably within three months of their filing. With these directions both the appeals are disposed of. - Civil Appeal Nos. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (8) of the Act on the basis of an exercise under Section 19 only. The Division Bench further came to hold that the direction to furnish information is without jurisdiction and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the complaints in accordance with law. 6. Before dealing with controversy in this case, let us consider the object and purpose of the Act and the evolving mosaic of jurisprudential thinking which virtually led to its enactment in 2005. 7. As its preamble shows the Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority in order to strengthen the core constitutional values of a democratic republic. It is clear that the Parliament enacted the said Act keeping in mind the rights of an informed citizenry in which transparency of information is vital in curbing corruption and making the Government and its instrumentalities accountable. The Act is meant to harmonise the conflicting interests of Government to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information with the right of citizens to know the functioning of the governmental process in such a way as to preserve the paramountcy of the democratic ideal. 8. The preamble wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrinsic component of freedom of speech and expression. (See para 43 page 213 of the report). 13. Again in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. Others - (1988) 4 SCC 592 this Court recognised that the Right to Information is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 14. This Court speaking through Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, as His Lordship then was, held : .We must remember that the people at large have a right to know in order to be able to take part in a participatory development in the industrial life and democracy. Right to know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age in our land under Article 21 of our Constitution. That right has reached new dimensions and urgency. That right puts greater responsibility upon those who take upon themselves the responsibility to inform. (Para 34, page 613 of the report) 15. In People s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. - (2004) 2 SCC 476 this Court reiterated, relying on the aforesaid judgments, that right to information is a facet of the right to freedom of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h functioning. (Active Liberty by Stephen Breyer - page 15) 20. However, while considering the width and sweep of this right as well as its fundamental importance in a democratic republic, this Court is also conscious that such a right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 21. Thus note of caution has been sounded by this Court in Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. Others v. Union of India Others (1997) 4 SCC 306 where it has been held as follows : Sunlight is the best disinfectant. But it is equally important to be alive to the dangers that lie ahead. It is important to realize that undue popular pressure brought to bear on decision makers in Government can have frightening side-effects. If every action taken by the political or executive functionary is transformed into a public controversy and made subject to an enquiry to soothe popular sentiments, it will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the independence of the decision maker who may find it safer not to take any decision. It will paralyse the entire system and bring it to a grinding halt. So we have two conflicting situations almost enigmatic and we think the answer is to maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any of the reasons provided under Sections 8 and 9. The proviso to Section 7 makes it clear that when it concerns the life or liberty of a person, the information shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 makes it clear that if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give the information, specified in sub-section (1), within a period of 30 days it shall be deemed that such request has been rejected. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 provides for payment of further fees representing the cost of information to be paid by the person concerned. There are various sub-sections in Section 7 with which we are not concerned. However, sub-section (8) of Section 7 is important in connection with the present case. Sub-section (8) of Section 7 provides : (8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall communicate to the person making the request,- (i) The reasons for such rejection; (ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld from it on any ground. 30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. 31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information. 32. In the facts of the case, the appellant after having applied for information under Section 6 and then not having received any reply thereto, it must be deemed that he has been refused the information. The said situation is covered by Section 7 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4; (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; (d) reject the application. 35. The procedure for hearing the appeals have been framed in exercise of power under clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act. They are called the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. The procedure of deciding the appeals is laid down in Rule 5 of the said Rules. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de to the decision of this Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose and Another v. Arabinda Bose and Another - AIR 1952 SC 369. At page 377 of the report Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri had laid down : It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute . 39. Same was the opinion of Justice Jagannadhadas in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another v. State of U.P. - AIR 1953 SC 394 at page 397 : It is incumbent on the court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which would render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application . 40. Justice Das Gupta in J.K. Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - AIR 1961 SC 1170 at page 1174 virtually reiterated the same principles in the following words : the courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect ._ 41. It is well-known that the legislature does not waste words or say anything i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for the respondent vide I.A. No. 1 of 2011 has been perused by the Court. By virtue of the said notification issued under Section 24 of the Act, the Government of Manipur has notified the exemption of certain organizations of the State Government from the purview of the said Act. This Court makes it clear that those notifications cannot apply retrospectively. Apart from that the same exemption does not cover allegations of corruption and human right violations. The right of the respondents to get the information in question must be decided on the basis of the law as it stood on the date when the request was made. Such right cannot be defeated on the basis of a notification if issued subsequently to time when the controversy about the right to get information is pending before the Court. Section 24 of the Act does not have any retrospective operation. Therefore, no notification issued in exercise of the power under Section 24 can be given retrospective effect and especially so in view of the object and purpose of the Act which has an inherent human right content. 46. The appeals which the respondents have been given liberty to file, if filed within the time specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
