1 / 9

Safeguarding The Right to Information: Interim Findings of The PEOPLE’S RTI ASSESSMENT 2008 RTI & THE COURTS

Safeguarding The Right to Information: Interim Findings of The PEOPLE’S RTI ASSESSMENT 2008 RTI & THE COURTS. Girija Krishan Varma Attorney Fellow, Stanford Law School Email: girijav@stanfordalumni.org girija.stanfordattorney@yahoo.com. Methodology.

arleen
Download Presentation

Safeguarding The Right to Information: Interim Findings of The PEOPLE’S RTI ASSESSMENT 2008 RTI & THE COURTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Safeguarding The Right to Information: Interim Findings of The PEOPLE’S RTI ASSESSMENT 2008RTI & THE COURTS Girija Krishan Varma Attorney Fellow, Stanford Law School Email: girijav@stanfordalumni.org girija.stanfordattorney@yahoo.com

  2. Methodology • Primary source: litigated CIC & SIC orders • Before various High Courts of India • Examination of files & court decisions • Data Collected: (so far) • Cases collected individually from Attorney • Court website often does not display the orders • Delhi High Court: 20 cases (summary of 15)

  3. Purpose of Study? • Who is filing ? • What is being challenged? • Case progression: faster/ or different? • Judiciary’s role in interpreting the law & Spirit of the Act (precedents)

  4. Assessment Criteria • Sample: (Delhi High Court only) • Examination of court records • 20 court files - only 15 selected • Cases filed from 2006 to 2008 • Nature of complaints • 80% cases (of sample) challenged by RTI applicant • 4 cases it was Union of India (UOI), Government • Response of “public authority” • Evaded first few appearances • Delay in filing reply • Applicant (UOI) sought “stay/ injunction” • Length of the litigation • Few Exceptions (Bhagat Singh vs. CIC) • “Run of the mill” cases • Court orders and judgments (very few precedents)

  5. Case Study ….1 • Info. Re.: Appointment of a sitting Judge • CIC directed • Disclosure of correspondence between CJI & Law Minister • Info. regarding recommendations for appointment of Hon’ble Judges. • Refused disclosure of letter which conveys the decision of the Collegium to the Law Minister from CJI • Under Sec 11 (1) as being third party information. • CIC’s decision was contested by Union of India in Ct., on ground it impacts the independence of the judiciary • Interim stay sought by UOI is pending

  6. Case Study…..2 • Info sought: Names of MCD’s Officials responsible for cleaning of public place & daily cleaning activities • No response from MCD & delay of proceedings • MCD verbally threatened physical assault (FIR lodged) • Judiciary ignored the “public cause” & non-compliance of mandatory provision (Sec 4 )of RTI Act. • Litigation pending for more than 1.5 years

  7. Case Study……3 Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Income Tax Department • Interprets Sec 8 (1) (h) that disallows disclosure as “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders” • Positive outcome as Hon’ble Judge held: • “mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; • the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. • Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.” • A precedent that strongly supports the spirit and underlying principles of the Right to Information Law. • Judgment was delivered within 9 months of filing.

  8. Findings • Courts have been positive: admit cases • Stay is granted conservatively & if given then judiciously • Cases progress as “run of the mill” cases, unless strongly pursued • Need more sensitivity to “public cause” that is involved • Mostly Courts have taken a liberal approach

  9. Thank you

More Related