[HumJanenge] Is Orissa Information Commission a Court at all?

Is Orissa Information Commission a Court at all?

Dear friends,

It has come to my notice on several occasions that many people even the educated ones have taken it for granted that Orissa Information Commission is a Civil Court. I have also seen that quite many complainants and appellants do have a strong misconception that the Commission is a Court like any other civil court and the Information Commissioners its judges. Remaining under the spell of such a wrong impression, they in course of their conversation about the hearing before the Commission are found to be using such expressions as Chief Court, Court-1, Court-2 and the like just as the professional lawyers do in reference to conventional courts. Moreover, during the hearing sessions before the Information Commissioners, they bow down their head before the concerned Commissioner/s and address him as "My Lord", a redundant practice in the conventional courts handed down since colonial days. Further it is also seen in the office of the Commission that the staffs of the Commission have been instructed to use such expressions as Court-1 and Court-2 etc. while preparing the list of Complaints and Second appeal cases to be taken up for hearing date-wise. It may be recollected that in the earlier days, Mr. D. N. Padhi the then Chief State Information Commissioner was found to be mentioning such self-eulogical expressions in his decision sheet as 'Court of Hon'ble State Chief Information Commissioner'. Because of this wrong precedent set by Sri D.N.Padhi not only the staffs of the Commission but also the complainants and appellants were perforce inclined to view the Commission as a court and its Commissioners as judges. It is further interesting to know that Mr.D.N.Padhi reserved such self-glorifying hyperboles for himself only, and never allowed other Commissioners to use it. Fortunately, there is no such crazy person as Mr.D.N.Padhi in the position of Chief OIC, nor any Information Commissioner presently uses such self-imagined address as Court for the Commission or 'Honorable'  for the Commissioners in writing the decision.  However, as the old tradition dies hard, it has been observed on several occasions that the Information Commissioners in course of the hearing or even in their official parlance have arbitrarily claimed that that they were a court. Some Commissioners have also pointed out that they are equal in rank and power with the Judges of High Court. 

 

But the moot question arises, whether the Orissa Information Commission is a Civil Court at all?  Certainly not; it is simply rubbish to claim like that. Let us examine what the RTI Act says on this crucial matter. Section 18(3) of the Act states inter alia, "The Central Information Commission  or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall while enquiring  into any matter under this section have the same power as are vested  in a  Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, in respect  of the following  matters, namely:-

 

(a)   Summoning and enforcing  the attendance  of persons and compel them  to give  oral or written evidence  on oath  to produce the documents or things:

(b)   Requiring  the discovery and inspection  of documents

(c)    Receiving evidence  on affidavit

(d)   Requisitioning  any public record or copies thereof  from any court or office

(e)   Issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents etc."

 

First of all, it clearly means that the Commission, not the Commissioner shall be vested with the concerned powers of a civil court. And there is a big difference between the Commission and Commissioner; while the Commission is an institution the Commissioner is a person. Secondly, the Commission will enjoy only a specific set of powers as mentioned in (a) to (e) above, but not all the powers of a Civil Court. Thirdly, the Commission is also not entitled to exercise the above powers all the time, but only and strictly at the time of conducting enquiry into any matter arising from the complaint lodged under Section 18 of the Act. Let us then bring out some critical differences between the Commission and a Civil Court. In case of an ongoing litigation before the civil court, both the complainant and respondent have to make the appearance and pleading, otherwise the concerned civil court might pronounce its decision against either of the parties ex parte, whereas in case of hearing before the Information Commission, the respondent PIO has to appear in person compulsorily since the onus of proof lies on him (Sections 19-5 and Proviso to Section 20-1) while the complainant or appellant may like not to appear at all [Rule 9-2 of Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006]. Then, in case of a hearing before the civil court, either of the parties can be represented by a professional lawyer, while in case of a hearing before the Information Commission, only the complainant or appellant has been allowed the spacious liberty of getting represented through anybody including even a non-lawyer layman, whereas the respondent PIO has to appear in physical person and can't employ any lawyer to plead for his case. It needs to be mentioned here that certain powers of Civil Court, as mentioned above, have been bestowed not only to the Information Commissions but also to other Commissions like Human Rights Commission, Women's Commission, Scheduled Tribes Commission and Minorities Commission etc. Not only that. Such subordinate officers as Sub-Collectors and Tahsildars are also entrusted with the above mentioned bunch of powers of a civil court. That doesn't render them into civil courts by nomenclature nor authorize them to exercise the whole gamut of powers which the mainstream civil courts are armed with under CPC 1908. All such Commissions and Officers are at best quasi-judicial authorities, to be distinguished from Civil Courts which are judicial authorities in proper sense of the term.     

 

Last but not least, I appeal to all concerned to ponder over the justification or otherwise of the persisting self-glorifying practice of Orissa Information Commissioners calling the Commission a Court and themselves as its Judges equal in rank with those of the High Court. It is also my earnest appeal to the complainants and appellants not to address the Commissioners with such colonial honorifics as 'My Lord'. Addressing an Information Commissioner as 'Sir' or Mahashaya in Oriya is befitting enough in course of a hearing. Above all, if anybody finds any Information Commissioner or officer of the Commission styling the Commission as a Civil Court anywhere,   they should stoutly protest against such illegal practice. And that is the surest path which would bury the stinking myth that Commission is a Court and Commissioners are its Judges.

Regards

Pradip Pradhan

M-99378-43482

Date-11.10.2011