New Delhi: Questioning the logic behind reconstituting a bench which was hearing the issue of bringing political parties under Right to Information Act, Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu had in a protest letter sent to Chief Information Commissioner R.K. Mathur earlier this year drawn a parallel with the issue of allocation of cases by the Chief Justice as ‘master of the roster’ following a press conference by four judges of the Supreme Court in January this year.
Details of Acharyulu’s letter have emerged through an RTI application filed by the Economic Times.The newspaper has reported that Mathur had constituted a new bench after removing all the earlier members in August 2017 but as no hearings took place since the two members retired, Acharyulu had objected to the move.
Though earlier requests for inspection of the file pertaining to the case of political parties being brought under the RTI Act used to be rejected on the ground that the file was “under circulation”, the access was finally allowed this year.
‘Chief Information Commissioner has no power to dissolve an existing bench’
The documents, the report said, revealed that Acharyulu had written to Mathur in February 2018 that “… the chief has no power under RTI Act to dissolve an already constituted full bench of three information commissioners… If a new bench with new members is constituted to hear the same matter which I and other members were already hearing, I and entire Commission have a right to such information and reasons thereof,” the newspaper reported.
It further said the central information commissioner questioned the rationale behind the reconstitution of the CIC bench stating that “it would be a judicial propriety for the chief to accord reasons to the Commission for reconstitution of the whole bench…”
“You may have noticed that the Chief Justice of India, who is the master of the roster, is also making such decisions in a transparent manner, after the four members of the collegium openly raised these issues. It is, therefore, important that all such decisions are taken in the Commission meeting with all the members present,” the report further quoted Acharyulu as saying, while referring to the protest by the four judges just a month before his letter.
Changing of bench raises eyebrow as issue pertained to political parties resisting being brought under RTI by Commission
The issue of the bench being reconstituted by Mathur gained traction since the six national political parties, who the 2013 order pertained to, had been resisting being brought under RTI Act.
With the parties neither complying with the direction of CIC nor challenging the order in any court, a plea had been filed in the Commission against their non-compliance with the order. While a three-member bench had been hearing the matter since 2016, late in the year information commissioner Bimal Julka had recused himself citing increased workload. Thereafter, Mathur had reconstituted the bench.
CIC insists chief did not violate rules by taking legal opinion
The newspaper report also referred to the seeking of legal opinion by the Commission of Additional Solicitor General of India Sanjay Jain on whether Mathur was correct in constituting a larger bench after dissolving the earlier one. It said the documents accessed during the inspection had revealed that CIC had paid Rs 1.10 lakh for this opinion. However, the ASG had had upheld Mathur’s decision to reconstitute a new bench.
The report had also noted that Rule 8 of the Law Officers (Conditions of Services) Rules 1972 states that a law officer “shall not advice any ministry or department of government of India or any statutory organisation or any public sector undertaking unless the proposal or a reference in this regard is received through the ministry of law and justice, department of legal affairs.”
In response to a questionnaire sent to Mathur, the ET report said, additional secretary at the Commission, R.K. Singh, justified the taking of the legal opinion on the basis of Section 12 (4) of RTI Act stating that “the Act clearly lays down that the chief is responsible for management of the Commission.”