Central Information Commission: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Right to Information (Amendment), 2019 */

2021-01-26T10:41:50Z

‎Right to Information (Amendment), 2019

Jyoti: /* Impediments */

2021-01-26T10:41:32Z

‎Impediments

Jyoti at 10:41, 26 January 2021

2021-01-26T10:41:02Z

Jyoti: /* Impediments */

2018-12-07T19:59:39Z

‎Impediments

Jyoti: /* Disposal of cases */

2018-12-07T19:57:55Z

‎Disposal of cases

Jyoti: /* 'Exceeding powers' */

2018-06-12T14:46:03Z

‎'Exceeding powers'

Pdewan: /* Central Information Commission: exceeding powers */

2018-06-11T20:48:06Z

‎Central Information Commission: exceeding powers

Pdewan: /* See also */

2017-04-23T16:33:48Z

‎See also

Pdewan at 16:33, 23 April 2017

2017-04-23T16:33:19Z

Pdewan: /* 2015-16 */

2017-04-23T16:23:35Z

‎2015-16

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:41, 26 January 2021
Line 109:		Line 109:

	If the tenure of the CIC, IC, SCIC and SIC are to be fixed by the Centre, it may follow that their removal from office may also be dependent on the Centre, whereas in the original bill, the CIC and IC may be removed only by the President — and the state governor in case of SCIC and SIC — after an inquiry by the Supreme Court finds reason for their dismissal from office.		If the tenure of the CIC, IC, SCIC and SIC are to be fixed by the Centre, it may follow that their removal from office may also be dependent on the Centre, whereas in the original bill, the CIC and IC may be removed only by the President — and the state governor in case of SCIC and SIC — after an inquiry by the Supreme Court finds reason for their dismissal from office.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|CCENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION: INDIA
		+	CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|CCENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION: INDIA
		+	CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION: INDIA]]

	[[Category:India\|CCENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION: INDIA		[[Category:India\|CCENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION: INDIA

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 While the trigger for Acharyulu’s letter to the President was two petitions filed by the RBI against the CIC for ordering it to implement Supreme Court orders upholding CIC’s direction to disclose names of wilful defaulters of banks, he also cited his own “curious” case in which he was impleaded for an order he passed seeking the educational details of PM Narendra Modi.
 ''WHAT NEW AMENDMENTS MEAN FOR RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT''
@@ Line 104: / Line 109: @@
 If the tenure of the CIC, IC, SCIC and SIC are to be fixed by the Centre, it may follow that their removal from office may also be dependent on the Centre, whereas in the original bill, the CIC and IC may be removed only by the President — and the state governor in case of SCIC and SIC — after an inquiry by the Supreme Court finds reason for their dismissal from office.
 =See also=

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 |}
-[[Category: India |C]]
-[[Category: Law,Constitution,Judiciary |C]]
@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 While the trigger for Acharyulu’s letter to the President was two petitions filed by the RBI against the CIC for ordering it to implement Supreme Court orders upholding CIC’s direction to disclose names of wilful defaulters of banks, he also cited his own “curious” case in which he was impleaded for an order he passed seeking the educational details of PM Narendra Modi.
 =See also=
@@ Line 82: / Line 109: @@
 [[Right to Information (RTI) Act: India]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 7 December 2018
Line 77:		Line 77:

	While the trigger for Acharyulu’s letter to the President was two petitions filed by the RBI against the CIC for ordering it to implement Supreme Court orders upholding CIC’s direction to disclose names of wilful defaulters of banks, he also cited his own “curious” case in which he was impleaded for an order he passed seeking the educational details of PM Narendra Modi.		While the trigger for Acharyulu’s letter to the President was two petitions filed by the RBI against the CIC for ordering it to implement Supreme Court orders upholding CIC’s direction to disclose names of wilful defaulters of banks, he also cited his own “curious” case in which he was impleaded for an order he passed seeking the educational details of PM Narendra Modi.
−
−	Acharyulu told TOI, “I have written this because it is high time someone spoke. These instances have been clear attempts to disallow people from seeking information under the RTI Act, and for the commission and commissioners to not order the government to disclose information.”
−
−	Acharyulu likened the state of affairs in CIC with the global trend of filing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which he said were “frivolous lawsuits meant to intimidate the target into ceasing public activities such as speaking out against an organisation or a person”.
−
−	In his petition to the President, he said, “Please save the Right to Information of the people from SLAPP and independence of CIC from this swarming threat of (writ) petitions by government bodies for acting as per law.

	=See also=		=See also=

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 The number of appeals and complaints disposed of by the commission in 2015-16 indicates an improved performance over the previous year, minister of state for personnel, public grievances and pensions Jitendra Singh said.
 =See also=
 [[Central Information Commission: India]]
 [[Right to Information (RTI) Act: India]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:46, 12 June 2018
Line 38:		Line 38:

	The commission order had come after DDA secretary V M Bansal was not able to clarify various points raised by the commission while hearing the plea of an RTI applicant Sarbajit Roy who had complained of poor implementation of RTI Act at the DDA.		The commission order had come after DDA secretary V M Bansal was not able to clarify various points raised by the commission while hearing the plea of an RTI applicant Sarbajit Roy who had complained of poor implementation of RTI Act at the DDA.
		+
		+	==‘CIC, commissioners can’t be equated with SC judges’==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F06%2F11&entity=Ar01410&sk=17C4A044&mode=text June 11, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	The chief information commissioner and information commissioners cannot be treated at par with Supreme Court judges as the former are statutory appointments and the required qualifications are different from those needed to be appointed as judges of the apex court, government sources said.
		+
		+	Sources said granting SC judge status to members of one statutory body and denying it to the others is “unfair”. “There are 31 SC judges. In the Election Commission, only three functionaries are in positions whereas through the equivalence provided in the RTI Act, more than 30 functionaries are being assigned such status and equivalence. This number is very large and creates anomaly with reference to other statutory bodies,” a source said.
		+
		+	Posts of ICs and SC judges are also incomparable, the sources said, because while the former is created through a statute, the Supreme Court judges hold constitutional positions and pass orders that become the law of the land. Election Commission is similarly empowered by the Constitution. Orders passed by information commissioners, on the other hand, can even be challenged in the high courts, sources said.
		+
		+	“The information commission is a creature of a statute and not the Constitution. “Its mandate is confined to protection of a statutory right viz: Right to Information,” said a source.
		+
		+	As per the present provisions, the chief information commissioner and information commissioners in the Centre and states are given status equivalent to the chief election commissioner and election commissioners. The CEC and ECs are equated to the Supreme Court judges in terms of conditions of service.

	=Disposal of cases=		=Disposal of cases=

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
-=Central Information Commission: exceeding powers=
+=Central Information Commission=
 HC slams CIC for exceeding powers
@@ Line 36: / Line 37: @@
 On September 22 last year, the CIC had formed the committee comprising director of ministry of urban development Shujata Chaturvedi, Dunu Roy from the Hazards Centre and Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, joint registrar, and sought a report within 45 working days from the date of order.
 The commission order had come after DDA secretary V M Bansal was not able to clarify various points raised by the commission while hearing the plea of an RTI applicant Sarbajit Roy who had complained of poor implementation of RTI Act at the DDA.
 =Disposal of cases=