Delhi HC upholds CIC order on uploading latest amended legislations on the Government website - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 31, 2016
The Delhi High Court in a recent judgement upheld the order of the Central Information Commission directing the Legislative Department of the Government of India to upload all the laws enacted by Parliament as amended from time to time.
The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgement has upheld an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Legislative Department, Government of India to upload on the official website all laws enacted by Parliament as amended from time to time. It has also upheld the CIC’s direction to the Government to examine the functionality of the official email addresses of officers of the Department.
A law student at the National Law School of India, University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, could not find the complete version of a law passed by Parliament with all the latest amendments online on the website of the Legislative Department, Government of India. He then submitted an RTI application to the Legislative Department and he claimed that the email bounced back. This application was filed in 2012. He approached the CIC through a complaint in September, 2015.
The Law student wanted to study the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1972 from the website, but   he   couldn’t. Though   he   could   find   the   Bare   Act   from the India Code website, it   was   impossible   to   read   as   the PDF   of   Bare   Act   was   not   at   all formatted. The sentences were not continuous and it was so confusing and difficult to correlate content and make out even a single sentence. He contended that as a student of law, for his course work he required to refer to several Bare Acts to ascertain the correct position of law, but India Code website is not in a position to help the students of law in any way.
Disposing of the case, the CIC pointed out:
“It is the minimum responsibility of state to provide updated information about amendments, which will go in long way in helping people. The access to law is not just a requirement of Law student and law researchers, but a necessity of all citizens. For instance, the Parliament by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, has amended section 100 of Indian Penal Code, which provide a right of private defence of body even to the extent of causing death in case of acid attack. Many men or women are not even aware of self defence right that they can even kill assailant if the later is attacking to kill, rape or throw acid, or cause grievous hurt etc.”
The CIC directed the Legislative Department as follows:
“11. The Commission directs the respondent authority, Legislative Department to inform the complainant and the Commission as to what action has been taken including details of the programme of updation, the possible date of its completion, expenditure involved, personnel employed etc. The Commission also recommends the department to recognise urgency and significance of the issue, expedite the process, allocate more fund to employ more personnel and complete the process of updation as soon as possible.
12. The Commission also directs the respondent authority to examine the functionality of the email ID in view of the Complainant’s claim that most of the email IDs have failed. The Legislative Department also should have perfect RTI filing system and answer mechanism.”
Despite the fact that the RTI was filed in 2012 and was resolved by the CIC only in November 2015, the CIC directed the Legislative Dept. to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the NLSIU as an exemplary measure. The Legislative Dept. challenged the CIC’s order before the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the directions of the CIC. Upholding both CIC directives relating to RTI, the Court said:
“3. In the present writ petition, it has been averred that the respondent never filed an RTI application in the prescribed form and the requisite fee. It is also stated that the respondent did not file the first appeal and hence the second appeal could not have been entertained by the CIC.
The High Court upheld the CIC’s order for token compensation saying:
“6. This Court also take judicial notice of the fact that in challenging the imposition of costs of Rs.10,000/-, the Government of India would have spent more money in filing the present writ petition. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the costs of Rs.10,000/- which was directed to be paid by the CIC, should be recovered from the salary of the Government officials who authorized the filing of the present writ petition.”
This landmark judgement, thanks to the intervention of the law student who ultimately had little use for the information sought, by the time the case was decided, is significant for multiple reasons:
The short but insightful order of the Delhi High Court contributes to the expansion of the regime of transparency established by the RTI Act.
Featured image: High Court of Delhi