Respected Sir With reference to the judgment of Supreme Court on appointment of Information Commissioner is itself unconstitutional on the following grounds:- Please read the par no. 8 of the order and direction of the Judgment as under- "8. The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a 'judicial member', while the other an 'expert member'. The judicial member should be a person possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions. A law officer or a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced law at least for a period of twenty years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work. We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners. Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of India" Please read the qualification for the post of High Court Judge which is prescribed by the Constitution of India as under:- Article217(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and— (a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or (b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court 3*** or of two or more such Courts in succession; 4*** Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause— 1[(a) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law;] 2[(aa)] in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during which the person 3[has held judicial office or the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law] after he became an advocate; (b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India or been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area which was comprised before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been an advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be. 4[(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court, the question shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the President shall be final.] Appointment of District judges and qualification required for appointment of District Judge under the Constitution of India is as under Article233(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment Please read Article 124 of the Constitution of India as follows:- (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and— (a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. Explanation I.—In this clause "High Court'' means a High Court which exercises, or which at any time before the commencement of this Constitution exercised, jurisdiction in any part of the territory of India.
There is very clear provision (article 124(3)(c))under Constitution a person who has not practised as an advocate can also be appointed as Judge of Supreme Court then why such person cannot be appointed as information Commissioner. 1) That as per Constitution of India Article 226 R/W Article 227 all subordinate Courts and Tribunals and all commissions including information commission is under the Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court and subordinate to the High Court. If this is correct position of law explained in L. Chandrakumar Vs Union of India AIR 1997 SC1125 then the judgment of such commission must under scrutiny before the High Court .A person who is eligible to appointed as District Judge if he is appointed so his judgment and order is also have scrutiny before the High Court. Therefore I surprised when Hon'ble ask the Government to appoint a person who has practiced as an Advocate for not less than 20 years to be appointed as information Commissioner. the person who has practice as Advocate for not less than 10 years is eligible to be appointed as High Court Judge but the same person is not eligible to be appointed for the post of Information Commissioner although post is lower post than a High Court judge whose orders can be set aside by a High Court Judge. The post of information Commissioner is equivalent to the post of District Judge or single Bench High Court at the max. Supreme Court has clearly transgressed the power of legislative authority which is not permitted by the Constitution which is creator of it.(Supreme Court has got existence from the Constitution of India) If the Court compels to appoint the retired Chief justice of High Court or Retired Supreme Court many State Governments will not find such person for appointment and for lack of eligible person the post will be vacant. The effect will be that there will be huge pendency in each and every commission and peoples will wait for getting orders and information which they requested. The delay may be more than 10 years and which will frustrate the object of the Right To information Act 2005 itself. prasad vaidya 08857993253 |
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Re: [HumJanenge] CITIZEN ENACTION
[HumJanenge] CITIZEN ENACTION
any member is SUFFICIENTLY concerned about
the recent Supreme Court judgment handing over
control of CIC to judges,
AND
you want something to be done about it.
AND
if you want your voice to be heard
THEN
send an email with subject "Save CIC Save RTI"
to
mailto:citizen.enaction@gmail.com
ie.
"citizen.enaction@gmail.com" without quotes.
ENACTION
"Enactive knowledge is knowledge that comes through action and it is
constructed on motor skills, such as manipulating objects, riding a
bicycle or playing a sport. The enactive knowledges of entities are
the ones acquired by doing."
[HumJanenge] Re: [rti4empowerment] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Constitution of Benches
This seems to be a IAC (Indians Against CJI) initiative to 'phasao' me.
Last time I checked Mr.Kapadia is still in his very palatial and
comfortable house (not that 'aam junta' like you or me would be
allowed inside) and still sits at his seat in Court # 1
For the record: I never said / wrote / published that this SC Judgment
is because CJI S.H.Kapadia is either homeless or jobless. Seems to me
tho that its the sort of thing Arvind may say.
Sarbajit
On 9/15/12, Murali Krishnan <rti4citizens@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Dear Friends *
> *
> *
> *Do you know that this judgment is only because ex-CJI Kapadia is homeless
> and without a job.*
> *
> *
> *Please support circulate this bold initiative from Dr. Sarbjit Roy to stop
> CORRUPT JUDICIARY from Swallowing AUTONOMOUS RTI Instititions like CIC.**
> *
> * *
> *
> *
> *---------- Forwarded message ----------**
> **From: **Sarbajit Roy** **<sroy.mb@gmail.com>**
> **Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM**
> **Subject: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Constitution of Benches**
> **To: "s.mishra" <s.mishra@nic.in>, satyananda mishra <
> satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>**
> **
> **
> **To:**
> ** Shri Satyananada Mishra ji**
> ** Chief Information Commissioner of India**
> ** Central Information Commission**
> ** August Kranti Bhawan**
> ** New Delhi**
> ** **
> ** BY EMAIL**
> ** **
> ** 15-Sep-2012**
> ** **
> ** PUBLIC GRIEVANCE / NOTICE-IN-LAW**
> ** **
> ** Sir**
> ** **
> ** I refer to**
> ** **
> ** a) Recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Namit Sharma versus**
> ** UoI" in WPC(C) 210 of 2012 d/d 13.09.2012.**
> ** **
> ** b) Full Bench Decision of Central Information Commission in Appeal no.**
> ** CIC/MA/A/2008/01085 d/d on 30.10.2009 with particular reference to my**
> ** submission on behalf of Tattwasoochna Sabha recorded at para 32**
> ** therein questioning (incomplete) constitution of the Full Bench.**
> ** **
> ** In the circumstances, and seeing as how Mr. Vijai Sharma is now the**
> ** only member (as far as I can see) in the Central Information**
> ** Commission qualified as "law member", I am aggrieved that the Hon'ble**
> ** Commission has consistently ignored all my submissions, pleas and**
> ** entreaties concerning this issue, and I hereby call on you to ensure**
> ** that henceforth the Central Information Commission must function in a**
> ** "collegium" at its Full Strength and hear and decide all cases "as a**
> ** body" with Mr Vijai Sharma always present and having a quorum of at**
> ** least 2 members.**
> ** **
> *
> * I may remind you that it was in one of my cases cited as WP(C)*
> *
> ** 12714/2009 in Delhi High Court that the CIC Management Regulations**
> ** 2007 regulating "Benches" was struck down as bad in law. The stay**
> ** order obtained in SLP 30152 thereafter allowing single IC benches**
> ** pende lite now seems modified by the latest judgment of Supreme Court.**
> ** It is pertinent that I am a party before the Supreme Court in that**
> ** matter (SLP 30152) which is now converted into regular civil appeal.**
> ** **
> ** Any alternative would be construed as "civil contempt of court" and I**
> ** would have no hesitation in initiating the requisite IA should I**
> ** decide to enter appearance as I have been called upon to do recently.**
> ** The responsibility to manage the affairs of the Commission vests in**
> ** you, hence this email.**
> ** **
> ** I would appreciate your acknowledgment.**
> ** **
> ** yours faithfully**
> ** **
> ** Er. Sarbajit Roy**
> ** B-59 Defence Colony**
> ** New Delhi 110024*
>
[HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Constitution of Benches
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Constitution of Benches
To: "s.mishra" <s.mishra@nic.in>, satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
To:
Shri Satyananada Mishra ji
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
August Kranti Bhawan
New Delhi
BY EMAIL
15-Sep-2012
PUBLIC GRIEVANCE / NOTICE-IN-LAW
Sir
I refer to
a) Recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Namit Sharma versus
UoI" in WPC(C) 210 of 2012 d/d 13.09.2012.
b) Full Bench Decision of Central Information Commission in Appeal no.
CIC/MA/A/2008/01085 d/d on 30.10.2009 with particular reference to my
submission on behalf of Tattwasoochna Sabha recorded at para 32
therein questioning (incomplete) constitution of the Full Bench.
In the circumstances, and seeing as how Mr. Vijai Sharma is now the
only member (as far as I can see) in the Central Information
Commission qualified as "law member", I am aggrieved that the Hon'ble
Commission has consistently ignored all my submissions, pleas and
entreaties concerning this issue, and I hereby call on you to ensure
that henceforth the Central Information Commission must function in a
"collegium" at its Full Strength and hear and decide all cases "as a
body" with Mr Vijai Sharma always present and having a quorum of at
least 2 members.
12714/2009 in Delhi High Court that the CIC Management Regulations
2007 regulating "Benches" was struck down as bad in law. The stay
order obtained in SLP 30152 thereafter allowing single IC benches
pende lite now seems modified by the latest judgment of Supreme Court.
It is pertinent that I am a party before the Supreme Court in that
matter (SLP 30152) which is now converted into regular civil appeal.
Any alternative would be construed as "civil contempt of court" and I
would have no hesitation in initiating the requisite IA should I
decide to enter appearance as I have been called upon to do recently.
The responsibility to manage the affairs of the Commission vests in
you, hence this email.
I would appreciate your acknowledgment.
yours faithfully
Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC ORDER ON INFORMATION COMMISSIONS
| sir, the SC judges have only ensured 100% re-employment for SC/HC judges. but forgot that Constitution does not allow them to be pleading under any other court in India. they have also lowered the status of SC judge. the judges did not read all provisions of RTI Act. and have not struck down any section of RTI Act as unconstitutional. they should have just recommended to the lawmakers to consider having some legal minds as ICs. rgds.beniwal --- On Sat, 15/9/12, prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
[HumJanenge] additional issues related SC order on appointment of information commissioners
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the
Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and—
(a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two
or more such Courts in succession; or
(b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of
two or more such Courts in succession; or
(c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Explanation I.—In this clause "High Court'' means a High Court which
exercises, or which at any time before the commencement of this
Constitution exercised, jurisdiction in any part of the territory of
India.
There is very clear provision (article 124(3)(c))under Constitution a
person who has not practised as an advocate can also be appointed as
Judge of Supreme Court then why such person cannot be appointed as
information Commissioner.
[HumJanenge] Re: SC ORDER ON INFORMATION COMMISSIONS
Respected Sir
With reference to the judgment of Supreme Court on appointment of Information Commissioner is itself unconstitutional on the following grounds:-
Please read the par no. 8 of the order and direction of the Judgment as under-
"8. The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a 'judicial member', while the other an 'expert member'. The judicial member should be a person possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions. A law
officer or a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced law at least for a period of twenty years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work. We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners. Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of India"
Please read the qualification for the post of High Court Judge which is prescribed by the Constitution of India as under:-
Article217(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and—
(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or
(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court 3*** or of two or more such Courts in succession; 4***
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause—
1[(a) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law;]
2[(aa)] in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during which the person 3[has held judicial office or the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law] after he became an advocate;
(b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India or been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area which was comprised before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been an advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be.
4[(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court, the question shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the President shall be final.]
Appointment of District judges and qualification required for appointment of District Judge under the Constitution of India is as under
Article233(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
1) That as per Constitution of India Article 226 R/W Article 227 all subordinate Courts and Tribunals and all commissions including information commission is under the Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court and subordinate to the High Court. If this is correct position of law explained in L. Chandrakumar Vs Union of India AIR 1997 SC1125 then the judgment of such commission must under scrutiny before the High Court .A person who is eligible to appointed as District Judge if he is appointed so his judgment and order is also have scrutiny before the High Court. Therefore I surprised when Hon'ble ask the Government to appoint a person who has practiced as an Advocate for not less than 20 years to be appointed as information Commissioner. the person who has practice as Advocate for not less than 10 years is eligible to be appointed as High Court Judge but the same person is not eligible to be appointed for the post of Information Commissioner although post is lower post than a High Court judge whose orders can be set aside by a High Court Judge. The post of information Commissioner is equivalent to the post of District Judge or single Bench High Court at the max.
Supreme Court has clearly transgressed the power of legislative authority which is not permitted by the Constitution which is creator of it.(Supreme Court has got existence from the Constitution of India)
If the Court compels to appoint the retired Chief justice of High Court or Retired Supreme Court many State Governments will not find such person for appointment and for lack of eligible person the post will be vacant. The effect will be that there will be huge pendency in each and every commission and peoples will wait for getting orders and information which they requested. The delay may be more than 10 years and which will frustrate the object of the Right To information Act 2005 itself.