MOTION: "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"
"FOR" the motion 1) Dr. Vishnu Mutthu 2) Sarbajit Roy 3) Veeresh Kumar 4) Sanjeev Santoshi 5) Venkatesh Nayak 6) Col. Kurup (in absentia) AGAINST the motion 1) Venkatesh Nayak 2) C K Jam ARGUMENTS FOR: 1) By 12(1), the CIC is a BODY (and not any individual). The decisions must be collective decisions and not "an individual ill-advised action of Mr Habibullah and his cronies.". There is no proof/evidence that this impugned "Regulation" is the collective work of the "body" (as distinct from "an individual ill-advised action of Mr Habibullah and his cronies"). a) The CIC had commissioned these Regulations to be drafted by Prof. K.K.Nigam - so called legal advisior to the Commission. This superannuated (75+ years) crony is receiving vast amounts of money for rendering very shoddy services. Prof Nigam can provide no answer to the defects raised by me when these are forwarded to him by Mr Habibullah. 2) For the "Regulations" to be "in force" there must be a) a NOTIFICATION in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE along with a HINDI version, b) Proof of tabling in Parliament. There is no evidence/proof of these requirement being complied with. 3) Section 12(4) only gives power to the CIC which cannot be exercised by "any other Authority under the Act". Since Rule making power is with "Government", CIC cannot exercise "Rule making" power. In Indian law there is no practical distinction between a "Rule" and a "Regulation" except that "Regulations" are generally "inferior" to "Rules". 4) CIC Regulations cannot contradict / dilute basic definitions / principles of the RTI Act (and the notified Rules) like has been done in cases of a) "prescribed" [regulation 2(i)] b) "transfer of applications" to "deemed PIOs" [regulation 2(e)(i)] c) "Presence of legal practitioners" allowed during hearings [regulation 2(n)] to "all parties" EXCEPT appellants/complainants [regulation 15(iv)] d) "Ex-parte decisions now explicitly permitted" [regulation 15(5)] e) Illegal "Benches" of CIC [regulation 13] f) Power of CIC [section 18(3)] to "COMPEL" ORAL/WRITTEN EVIDENCE ON OATH/AFFIDAVIT made optional by "may" [regulation 18(iii), 20(iii)] g) [regulation 18(iv)] exceeds the RTI Act by creating a non-existent power to "examine" (a power of court). h) Illegal requirement for appellant/complainant to "certify" that matter is not pending in any court or tribunal. [regulation 9(vi)] i) Illegal exercise of power to "reject" a Complaint to the Commission for formal defects is given to Registry.[regulation 11(v)]. The Act, however, by clause 18(1) compulsorily requires the "Commission" to receive and inquire into any complaint, and satisfy itself if there are reasonable grounds to proceed further. j) The notified Appeal (Procedure) Rules,2005 specify that every order of the Commission SHALL be pronounced in "open proceedings". The regulations, however, [regulation 22(ii)] now dispenses with open proceedings. k) RTI Act allows CIC to award "compensation" to the COMPLAINANT. The regulations now permit CIC to award "costs" and "compensations" to the "parties". By this CIC has given itself powers to impose costs even on appellants/complainants - which has no basis from the Act. 5) CIC regulations make things difficult for citizens. a) "create unnecessary encumbrances for appellants and complainants" b) Now shifts the pro-citizen nature of RTI Act which places burden on PIO/PA onto the citizens. " CIC has made it people-hostile, discriminatory, shifting accountability at various aspects back to the appellant, increasing the degree of difficulty to the extent that it is impossible for poor complainants hailing from faraway places to derive the full benefits envisaged in the Act making the RTI Act at par or worse than the Acts and Rules of 'British Raj'." 6) CIC grants benefits to themselves not listed in RTI Act. For example [regulation 6] allows CIC to take upto 6 weeks of annual vacations. The RTI Act has no provision for this until it is "prescribed". ARGUMENTS AGAINST: 1) The CIC can make these regulations for itself. The 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. 2) The debate is infructuous. The Regulations are not being followed at CIC and has been thrown out of the window there by some ICs and Registrars. Let the debate continue Sarbajit
