Dear all, To add my two bits to the discussion: Even when Management regulations are notified in the Gazette they will not be law. To become law they should have been approved by Parliament. However I do not agree that the CIC cannot make these regulations for itself. This enabling provision is sorely missing from the main Act no doubt. However the appeals rules do not contain much detailing of procedure. The Manual of Office Procedure of the Central Sectt. may be used but it will have limited value as the CIC's work is more specialised than a routine government office. The CIC has to function even in the absence of detailed rules. Unless the DoPT comes out with very detailed appeals rules nothing bars the CIC from having regulations of its own, so long as it does not overstep the main Act. The CIC Regulations do create unnecessary encumbrances for appellants and complainants. I had drafted a critique for CHRI, the organisation I work with, soon after the regulations were passed and sent it to the CIC. CIC promised that it would not implement it word for word as there was a lot of resistance from CSOs at that point of time. However with time the regulations have come to be accepted by many appellants. The CIC is also following it largely. but they took out one progressive regulation which allowed for review of a decision based on a claim of error of law or of facts. I have taken the benefit of this regulation for an acquaintance and know that it is useful. However the CIC in its own wisdom chose to delete it. So these days the only way we can challenge some of the decisions that are not in tune with what we think is the letter and spirit of the RTI Act is through a writ petition in the High Court. In addition to CIC the SICs of Uttarakhand and Andhra Pradesh have also brought in their regulations. As there is a lot of controversy regards the regulations we have not uploaded them on the CHRI website for which I have received some criticism from an RTI watcher also. Nevertheless once the validity of the regulations is upheld in some formal manner, we will upload them on our website as well. Thanks Venkat
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vishnu Mutthu Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Re: ACTIVE DEBATE #1 (CIC Management Regulations, 2007) Dear Mr Sarbajit This is a very good step you have taken. Good discussion is badly needed in the group. I am also FOR the motion - the Regulations are absolutely illegal. 1) After reading section 12 of RTI Act i find a) the Central Information Commission ("Commission") is a BODY and not any individual like Mr Habibullah. Therefore all the decisions of CIC must be "collective" decisions. Yet, in many cases, we find that orders of one I.C. are contradicting another I.C. b) the "general" supervision / direction / management of the Commission to "vest in" the Chief Information Commission. This actually reaffirms that the CIC is a collective body and that the Chief Information Commissioner is not SPECIFICALLY responsible for any decision / action / omission of the Commission. c) the limitation of 12(4) viz, " may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act." is placed on the Commission as a whole and not on the Chief Information Commissioner. It is clear that the Commission can only exercise powers and do things which cannot be done by any other authority under the Act. So the Commission has no rule making powers since these are with the "government". In Indian law there is no distinction between "Law", "Rule" and "Regulation". In fact till 1833 India's "laws" were known as "Regulations". WHERE IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BODY OF CIC TO FRAME THESE REGULATIONS? (This is clearly a individual ill-advised action of Mr Habibullah and his cronies). 2) If the Management Regulations are "notified" then there will be a Gazette Notification. So far there is no Gazette Notification. Not only has the DoPT has refused to notify these Regulations but DoPT has also challenged the legal basis or power of 12(4) for CIC to frame these regulations. WHERE IS THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION? WHERE IS THE OFFICIAL HINDI TRANSLATION OF THESE REGULATIONS? (I have asked Indian Embassy at Paris but they do not have it) 3) I also find that CIC has tampered with crucial definition of "prescribed". In RTI Act ""prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;" In CIC Regulations ""Prescribed" means prescribed by or under the Act or under the Rules or Regulations." WHEN THE PARENT ACT DOES NOT PERMIT PRESCRIPTION TO BE ANY OTHER WAY BUT BY RULES, HOW CAN MR. HABIBULLAH NOTIFY SUCH REGULATIONS? Yours Dr Vishnu Mutthu --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > Topic: > > "This House believes that the 'CIC Management Regulations, 2007' have no basis/force in law, and 'inter alia' contravene/dilute the parent "RTI Act 2005" and the duly notified Rules published by Central Government thereunder to the detriment of citizens" > > Proposed by > Sarbajit Roy > "FOR" the motion > > Kindly identify yourself as "FOR" or "AGAINST" the motion while setting out your case. > > If there is insufficient representation for any "side", the Moderators shall "honour" 1 or 2 "Devils advocates". > > If there is insufficient participation in this and other future debates - the Moderators shall dissolve this group. > > Reference Material: > http://cic.gov.in/CIC%20Regulations,%202007.pdf > http://cic.gov.in/rti-act.htm > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Notifications/CIC%20Appeal%20Rules.pdf > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links
