Dear Friend, Thanks, I have read the opinion of Prof. Nigam.
My views are as under: 1) Constitution of India supersedes all other laws in this country. 2) Parliament, Supreme Court and High Courts, they all have come into existence by virtue of the Constitution of India and are governed by it's various provisions. a) Parliament (Part XV Elections Article 324 to 329) b) Supreme Court (Chapter IV - Articles 124 - 147) c) High Courts (Chapter V - Articles 214 - 231) 3) Although Parliament has come into existence by virtue of the Constitution of India, having come into existence Article 368 makes Parliament the Supreme Authority in our Democracy, by allowing the Parliament, to amend the Constitution. Article 368 (5) - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article. 4) By virtue of Article 368 the collective wisdom of Paliament has the power to REPEAL Chapter IV Articles 124 - 147 and like wise Chapter V Articles 214 - 231 and thereby do away with the present justice system altogether (Maybe to replace the existing judicial system)(Just to prove the point of supremacy in a hierarchy) 5) How will then existing High Courts or Supreme Court sit in judgment? 6) Parliamentarians, have been elected from across the country by the people of India and they represent all the citizens of this country and hence they are the supreme authority.(Please read Article 368(5)- For removal of doubts.......) 7) A Court cannot decide on what the people of this country wants but the Parliament can. 7) Hence if Parliament has explicitly passed in an Act that Courts have been barred from a particular issue or for that matter Courts have been barred completely from any and every issue, the word of the Parliament shall be final. 8) Although Parliament can sit into a loop and amend the Constitution by virtue of which it has come into existence but the Courts cannot sit into a loop and decide on the decision of the Parliament, except that a proper procedure was followed while making/passing those decisions. The hierarchy goes like this: Constitution < > Parliament < Supreme Court < High Court. 8) An individual Parliamentarian if at fault, is not above the law and can be prosecuted in any Court of law, but collective Parliamentarians have the power vested in them to create or discontinue a law as well as create Courts and if necessary altogether discontinue them too. Warm Regards, On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 Vikram Simha wrote : >Dear Freind , >Since you have Marked your mail with your arguments in the matter to Both CCIC >& CIC at this juncture i request you to kindly see the following url Or the >Site of Legal opinion in CIC Web site >http://cic.gov.in/legal%20opinion.htm >where in an opnion on the writ jurdiction of the high courts are furnished by >one Prof K K Nigam on 17/7/2007 itself . His Email ID is [email protected] >Now my doubt is what is the Writ Jurdiction for CIC , can be construed that >because the Original RTI application or Request originated in a place other >than delhi but only a final decesion was delivered in Delhi , which will be >the cause of Action and which will be High Court -- Delhi or outside Delhi . >I have marked this mail to Prof.Nigam also > >N vikramsimha , Trustee RTI Study Centre & >KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore >560004. > >--- On Wed, 25/3/09, abhi987 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: abhi987 <[email protected]> >Subject: [rti_india] Whether High Courts have jurisdiction over Orders passed >under the RTI Act, 2005? An argument, A Poi >To: [email protected] >Cc: "wajahat" <[email protected]>, [email protected] >Date: Wednesday, 25 March, 2009, 11:25 PM > > > > > > >Dear Wajahat Habibullah, Shailesh Gandhi and All, > >Whether High Courts have jurisdiction over Orders passed under the RTI Act, >2005? An argument, A Point of View. > >1) Constitution of India supersedes all other laws in this country. > >2) Parliament has come into existence by virtue of the Constitution of India. >(Part XV âElections â Article 324 to 329) > >3) Having come into existence Parliamentarians have been conferred upon the >powers to amend the Constitution itself, by way of addition, variation or >complete repealing of any or all the Articles of the Constitution. > >In fact Article 368 (5) of the Constitution is very emphatic. > >Article 368 (5) - âFor the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that >there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament >to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this >Constitution under this article.â� > >4) Right to Information Act, 2005 has been passed in the Parliament of India. > >5) Sec. 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 states that it is to have an overriding effect >over all other existing laws prevalent in the country. > >6) Sec. 23 of the RTI Act, 2005 categorically bars the jurisdiction of Courts >in respect of any order/s passed under it's Act. > >7) Sec. 22 & 23 of the RTI Act, 2005 fall well within the meaning of power of >Parliament to amend by way of addition and variation to the provisions of the >Constitution under Article 368. > >8) Article 329 of the Constitution is a precedent to Sec. 23 of the RTI Act, >wherein jurisdiction of Courts have been particularly barred in electoral >matters. > >9) Hence, > >By virtue of powers conferred to the Parliament under Article 368 of the >Constitution and taking Article 329 as a precedent, > >It can be reasonably inferred, > >That by virtue of sec. 22 & 23 of the RTI Act, > >The Articles 226, 226 A & 227 of the Constitution which defines the powers of >a High Court within it's jurisdiction, stand amended to the extent of any >orders passed under the RTI Act, 2005. > >Especially Article 226 A w.e.f. 13-4-1978 particularly stands amended by >virtue of RTI Act, 2005 w.e.f. 15-06-2005, because the RTI Act is recent. > >[Article 226 A "Constitutional validity of Central laws not to be considered >in proceedings under article 226."] > >10) Hence, > >No Court can entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of >any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question >otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act. > >11) If the Courts were to entertain proceedings in respect of orders passed >under the RTI Act, the road to information will become long and expensive. > >The author of the RTI Act had envisaged this and hence introduced sec. 22 & 23 >in the Act. > >Link to above: http://www.rtiindia .org/forum/ blogs/abhi987/ 335-whether- >high-courts- have-jurisdictio n-over-orders- passed-under- rti-act-2005- >argument- point-view. html > >Warm Regards, > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to > http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
