On
January 31, 2020 a
Supreme Court bench comprising
Justices DY Chandrachud and
KM Joseph issued a notice to the Central Government to give response within four weeks, on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by
ex-Union Minister and
Congress MP Jairam Ramesh challenging the constitutionality of the
Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the
Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019 (RTI Rules).
“The real object of the amendment is to denude the authorities under the RTI of their independence and impartiality. The Government feels threatened by the authorities under RTI that are not answerable to it and hence, the real purpose of the impugned amendments is to clip the independence and impartiality of the authorities under the act,” saysPIL filed by Jairam Ramesh.
"Section 2 (c) of the amendment Act grants absolute power to the central government to prescribe the salaries, allowances, and terms and conditions of service of the central information commissioners that in the pre-amended Act was fixed to be on par with election commissioners under section 13 (5) of the RTI Act," the plea said.
As per plea,
Rule 3 and
Rule 12 prescribes a tenure of
3 years for the office of Central as well as State Information Commissioners and
Rule 5 and
Rule 14 for stipulating the salaries of the Central and the State Information Commissioners which shall be at the pleasure of the Central Government.
Rule 21 gives the Central Government absolute power to decide the
‘condition of service’ of Information Commissioners not expressly covered under the rules, which is further questioned as a residuary power. Moreover,
Rule 22 gives discretionary power to the Central Government to relax the applicability of the provisions of the
RTI Rules for any class or category of persons such as the
Central Information Commissioner (CIC) and the
State Information Commissioner (SIC), thereby empowering the Centre. Further, it is contended that it infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 19 (1) (a)and
21 of the
Constitution of India, 1949. Last year, the Congress leader had alleged that the government was bringing amendments in the RTI Act to take revenge on institutions as it exposes the "false claims" of the government.
"These are the embarrassing cases for the government. The case about his educational qualification in Delhi Court. The Prime Minister has claimed rupees four crores' bogus ration cards were weeded out by his government whereas the RTI shows that the number of bogus rations cards was actually Rs. 2.3 crore," he had said. Author – Satwik Sharma
Husband not Entitled to Seek Information Regarding Bank Details & Income Tax Returns of His Wife under RTI Act, 2005: CIC [READ ORDER]
Judiciary
Jan 28, 2021
Gautami Chakravarty
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
0 Shares
The Central Information Commission in a recent matter at hand has held that a husband is not entitled to seek information regarding bank details & income tax returns of his wife under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Filing of the Income Tax Returns by an individual with the Income Tax Department is not a public activity, Neeraj Kumar Gupta the Information Commissioner has opined."It is in the nature of an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes, this...
Central Information Commission Drops Show Cause Notice, Disposes of Complaint in Aarogya Setu RTI Case
Executive
Nov 30, 2020
Dev Kumar Patel
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
5 Shares
A complainant, Saurav Das had filed an RTI Application seeking information from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), the National e-Governance Division (NEGD), and the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology about the process of creation of the Aarogya Setu App and other information relating to it.The main contention raised by the complainant was that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National e-Governance Division (NEGD), and Ministry of Electronics &...
964 Views
![Right To Information Is Implicit In Right To Freedom Of Speech And Expression: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2019/12/lj_5625_Right_To_Information_Is_Implicit_In_Right_To_Freedom_Of_Speech.jpg)
![If Person Seeks Information Under Right To Information, Then Payment Has To Be Sought As Per RTI Rules Only: SC [Read Order]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2019/08/lj_1750_If-Person-Seeks-Information-Under-Right-To-Information-Then-Payment-Has-To-Be-Sought-As-Per-RTI-Rules-Only-SC.jpg)
![Husband not Entitled to Seek Information Regarding Bank Details & Income Tax Returns of His Wife under RTI Act, 2005: CIC [READ ORDER]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2021/01/lj_8122_rti.jpg)
Facebook Comments