Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Supreme Court Affirms CIC’s Power to Frame Regulations: Essential for Autonomy and Efficiency

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chief Information Commissioner’s Authority to Constitute Benches Under Section 12(4) of RTI Act Upheld

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) authority to frame its own regulations and constitute benches, emphasizing the importance of autonomy and efficiency in administrative bodies. The judgment, delivered by Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, sets aside the Delhi High Court’s restrictive interpretation, allowing the CIC to continue operating under its Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007.

The case originated from an application filed by Sarbjeet Roy under the Right to Information Act (RTI), seeking information regarding the modification of the Master Plan of Delhi for 2021 and compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The CIC’s subsequent order, directing the formation of a committee to inquire into the matter, was challenged by the DDA. The Delhi High Court quashed the CIC’s regulations and declared that the CIC lacked the power to constitute benches, prompting the CIC to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court underscored the broad powers granted to the CIC under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, which includes general superintendence, direction, and management of the Commission’s affairs. Justice Vikram Nath noted, “The autonomy and independence of administrative bodies are fundamental to their ability to perform their designated functions effectively.”

The bench emphasized that undue interference in the administrative functions of bodies like the CIC undermines their ability to operate impartially and efficiently. The judgment highlighted, “Ensuring their independence is essential for maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the administrative system.”

The Supreme Court extensively discussed the necessity of a broad and purposive interpretation of the RTI Act. The court argued that the CIC’s powers to manage its internal functions inherently included the ability to constitute benches, despite the lack of explicit provisions in the RTI Act. Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “The principle of purposive interpretation supports the view that the CIC’s powers under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act include all necessary measures to manage and direct the Commission’s affairs effectively.”

Justice Vikram Nath stated, “The use of the words ‘superintendence, direction, and management’ in Sections 12(4) and 15(4) of the RTI Act clearly provides the CIC an ambit of power wide enough to frame its own Regulations and to delegate its power to a committee formed by it.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the CIC’s regulatory powers reinforces the autonomy of administrative bodies, ensuring their ability to function efficiently and impartially. By affirming the CIC’s authority under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, the judgment promotes transparency and accountability, core objectives of the RTI Act. This landmark ruling is expected to significantly impact the functioning of the CIC, allowing it to manage its workload and operational demands effectively.

 

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024

Central Information Commission v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Latest Legal News