2013 (3) TMI 378 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies Information Commissioner's jurisdiction under RTI Act, emphasizes statutory appeal process

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Versus STATE OF MANIPUR

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the Information Commissioner lacks jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act ... Exemption from RTI - Power of CIC or SIC - Application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act - The High Court has held that under Section 18 of the Act the Commission has no power to direct the respondent to furnish the information and further held that such a power has already been conferred under Section 19(8) of the Act . held that:- It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information. This Court, therefore, directs the appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information within a period of four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory procedure by the appellants, the same should be considered on merits by the appellate authority without insisting on the period of limitation. By virtue of the notification dated 15-10-2005 issued under Section 24 of the Act, the Government of Manipur has notified the exemption of certain organizations of the State Government from the purview of the said Act. This Court makes it clear that those notifications cannot apply retrospectively. Apart from that the same exemption does not cover allegations of corruption and human right violations. The appeals which the respondents have been given liberty to file, if filed within the time specified, will be decided in accordance with Section 19 of the Act and preferably within three months of their filing. With these directions both the appeals are disposed of. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act.2. The power of the Information Commissioner to direct the disclosure of information.3. The appropriate procedure for obtaining information under the Right to Information Act.4. The retrospective application of notifications issued under Section 24 of the Act.Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act:The primary issue in this case was whether the Information Commissioner had the jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act to direct the disclosure of information. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decisions dated 30th May 2007 and 14th August 2007. The Court clarified that under Section 18, the Information Commission can only inquire into complaints and has no power to provide access to the information requested. The Court stated, 'The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20.'The Power of the Information Commissioner to Direct the Disclosure of Information:The Supreme Court held that the power to direct the disclosure of information is specifically provided under Section 19(8) of the Act, which is an appellate procedure. The Court noted that Section 18 and Section 19 serve different purposes and lay down different procedures, and one cannot be a substitute for the other. The Court emphasized, 'The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure.'The Appropriate Procedure for Obtaining Information under the Right to Information Act:The Court highlighted the statutory mechanism provided under Section 7 read with Section 19 for a person aggrieved by the refusal to receive information. The Court stated, 'A person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.' The Court directed the appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act for their requests dated 9-2-2007 and 19-5-2007 within four weeks and for the appellate authority to consider these appeals on merits without insisting on the period of limitation.The Retrospective Application of Notifications Issued under Section 24 of the Act:The Court clarified that notifications issued under Section 24 of the Act, which exempt certain organizations from the purview of the Act, cannot apply retrospectively. The Court stated, 'The right of the respondents to get the information in question must be decided on the basis of the law as it stood on the date when the request was made.' The Court emphasized that Section 24 does not have any retrospective operation, and no notification issued under this section can be given retrospective effect.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the Information Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction under Section 18 to direct the disclosure of information and that such power is conferred under Section 19(8) of the Act. The Court directed the appellants to file appeals under Section 19 and clarified that notifications under Section 24 cannot be applied retrospectively. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.