NEW DELHI: Information obtained under Right To Information Act is
increasingly becoming the basis of public interest petitions seeking
judicial redress of grievances. The Supreme Court on Monday
disapproved of this modus operandi and said from now, it would not
entertain PILs solely based on RTI information.
"Petitioners banking on information obtained through RTI Act must
approach the concerned ministry, bring the facts to its notice and
demand justice. If the ministry does not reply, it is a different
matter. But a person must demand notice from the authorities first
before approaching the courts," a bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia
and Justice Swatanter Kumar said.
Counsel V Joglekar, appearing for petitioner All India Road Network
Users Association, said over 300 RTI applications were filed and the
information showed lack of intent and drive on the part of transport
authorities across the country to enforce safety fitments in vehicles.
Absence of such fitments had led to numerous fatal accidents in the
rainy season, it said and pleaded for enforcement of norms specified
under the Motor Vehicles Act.
But the bench was unrelenting in its stand that every petitioner must
first give a comprehensive representation about his grievance to the
authorities and demand justice. Only when the authorities or
ministries fail to address the representation can a person move the
court, it said.
"It is not fair that everyone should approach the court after
obtaining information under RTI without giving notice to the concerned
authorities," it said.
All India Road Network Users Association, through counsel Manish
Pitale, said it had sought information from transport commissioners
across the country about enforcement of provisions relating to proper
fittings in cars, buses, trucks and other heavy vehicles to minimize
accidents arising from poor visibility during the monsoon season.
It said the central legislation relating to motor vehicles specified
norms relating to rear view mirror, mud flaps and reflectors for
various categories of automobiles. But because of poor implementation,
running of vehicles on rainy days caused heavy cloud of water
particles, which obstructed the vision of drivers and led to fatal
accidents.
The bench clarified that it was not undermining the importance of the
PIL but insisted that the petitioners must approach the government
first before moving courts. It allowed withdrawal of the PIL as the
counsel said the association would make a proper representation before
the ministry concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.