Amba Salelkar

For all our children


Amba Salelkar

SC to hear review plea on amending RTI Act

Ads by Google

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the Centre's plea to review its verdict on amending the RTI Act to ensure that only serving and retired judges of the apex court and chief justices of high courts could head the central and state information commissions.

A Bench of Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar decided to hear the review petition in the open court.

Asserting that the court cannot issue directions to the legislature to amend an Act or rules and that it is the responsibility of Parliament, the Centre has claimed that the September 13 judgment "sought to complicate a simple statute".

It said that certain directions were in violation of provisions of the RTI Act and thus damaging to the smooth functioning of the Act.

"These contrary directions have the potential to create disarray in the functioning of the central and state information commissions. Such directions amount to a clear error apparent on the face of the record, being in absolute disregard to the provisions of the Act," the petition, drafted by counsel Anoopam N Prasad for the Department of Personnel and Training had stated.

Disputing the court's mandate to equate information commission with a judicial tribunal, it said the commissions can, at best, said to be quasi-judicial bodies, carrying on primarily administrative work.

The plea further said that if the status of the commissions was altered to that of a judicial tribunal, and a court attached system of justice, this would only result in a delay at various levels.

Ads by Google
Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus