Supreme court decision on rti applicant as consumer
vinaykala
(Querist) 09 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
dear sir,
i am informed that the latest position in regards to national commission forum is that an rti applicant is not a consumer, reversing its earlier decision.
i also learn that a certain ngo has filed apetition with the supreme court in this connection.
kindly let me know
1. the latest position
2. does the delhi district forum admit consumer complaints under its own bodies like the municipal corporation of delhi
thanks
vinay kala
march 09,13
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 09 March 2013
In the Judgment of NCDRC in RP 1975/2005 the Mr. Justice R.K. Batta had observed, “The competent authority (PIO) was required to give information within 15 days of the application in terms of Section 5 of the said RTI Act. However, the said information was not furnished. The complainant had approached the District Forum claiming compensation/damages for deficiency of service. Even though, further remedy may be available to the applicant in case information is not supplied in terms of Section 5 of the said RTI Act within 15 days, yet, there is no bar to approach the District Forum for deficiency of service. The remedy under the said RTI Act would take care of disciplinary action and penalty against the competent authority(PIO)in not furnishing the information but no remedy is provided under the said RTI Act to the applicant seeking information therein if information sought is not provided resulting in deficiency of service on that count. The applicant had paid a fee of Rs.10/- for seeking the said information. The case of the applicant would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2(i)(o) of CP Act, which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users, which include purveying of news or supplying of other information. The complainant had availed of the services under the said RTI Act for consideration by paying fee and had sought information under the said Act, which was not supplied to him, which amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant is, thus, a consumer vis-à-vis information sought on payment under the said Act. In our view, therefore, the State Commission was wrong while holding that once the complainant had availed the remedy against which appeal was provided, he could not maintain a complaint under the CP Act.”
vinaykala
(Querist) 09 March 2013
this as far as i know is not the latest position.
the national consumer forum has reversed recentluy its earlier decision of treating an rti applicant as a consumer.
i am informed that the matter is pennding beforre the supreme court.
plese do provide latest dicisions
vinay kala
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 09 March 2013
The latest SC view is this:
A Recent Supreme Court Ruling Could Kill RTI
UpFront/Special | Oct 3, 2012
The Supreme Court has placed the Central Information Commission (CIC), the apex body to deal with appeals regarding RTI, as well as the Information Commissions across the states in a fine pickle.
On September 13, a division bench of the Supreme Court, chaired by Justice AK Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar, passed an order which would fundamentally change the constitution and working of Information Commissions. Apart from the operational problems, the suggested changes would require an amendment to the RTI Act by the government. As a result, none of the information commissioners know whether to discharge their duty and, if so, how. Moreover, many RTI activists are complaining about a blatant case of judicial over-reach.
“The SC can say something is wrong and needs to be changed but they can’t order the legislature to make a law according to their directions,” says Subhash Agarwal, a prominent RTI activist in New Delhi.
The Order
The SC has ordered that Information Commissions should henceforth hear appeals as two-member benches, replacing the existing norm of each member working separately. What further complicates the matter is the ruling that one member in each bench should necessarily be a ‘judicial’ member. By ‘judicial’, the SC implies someone who has practised law for 20 years or preferably a judge or a retired judge of the SC or a high court. Lastly, the Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre and the states should also be a judicial member.
The Disorder
The Central Information Commission has eight active members, including the chief, out of the total 11 vacancies. Not one among them is a judicial member. Nobody, including the commissioners, is clear how they should function, considering there are no judicial members to constitute even a single bench. Even when judicial members join, the bunching of two members in a team is likely to slow down the disposal rate because there will only be half the outlets dealing with complaints, not to mention the increased time taken when two members deliberate. “Effectively the disposal of pending cases will drop to about 50 percent of the current disposals,” says Shailesh Gandhi, a former Information Commissioner at the CIC. The probable rise in pendency to almost five years could sound the death knell for the Act, according to Gandhi.
Certain other elements in the order have confused observers. For instance, it is unlikely that a sitting judge will ever leave the Supreme Court to join the CIC. Yet ironically, a retired judge of the SC would also not be able to join since both the SC and CIC have the same retirement age of 65 years. It is not clear why the head of Information Commissions must necessarily be a judicial member. “If anything, he or she needs to have some administrative acumen over and above a regular member,” says Agarwal.
Still, not every thing is wrong with the SC order. One view is that the inclusion of judicial members is likely to bring some diversity in the appointees to these commissions, often described as a parking lot for bureaucrats. “While the decisions will be more robust, one is still afraid that the real loser might be the common man who may find it too daunting to represent himself in front of a judge and may incur additional costs in hiring lawyers,” says Anjali Bhardwaj, member of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 March 2013
The final verdict of supreme court on given facts is still pending and is expected to be pronounced soon.
vinaykala
(Querist) 09 March 2013
thanks sir,
i would also like to know that after the national consumer forum has reversed its order earlier, and now stated that an rti applicant is not a consumer, what is the supreme court view on this ?
is a writ pending before it as a sequel to the the decision of the national consumer forum?.
secondly does delhi district forum south accept an rti applicant as a consumer
vinay kala march 09 13
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 10 March 2013
wit till the supreme court passes the final verdict.
vinaykala
(Querist) 10 March 2013
dear sir,
thanks burman sahab
vinay kala
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 10 March 2013
1. Yes.
2. Delhi Consumer forum has also to follow the verdict of National Commission which bars the jurisdiction for RTI Act.
