1. I. rti Victory: hc forced to reveal disposal rate

By now everybody knows the object of the RTI Act, 2005 for which it is enacted. Yet, it is necessary to spell out the same to evoke awareness in the minds of people at large so that they get inspiration to make use of it for their benefit as well as for the society to whom everyone of us owes a debt. Here below is the object of the said Act:–

1. "To provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the Constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto;

2. And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

3. And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;

4. And whereas it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal."

2. Shri Shailesh Gandhi, a spritated citizen and renowned RTI activist, asked the PIO of Bombay High Court to provide information on the number of cases disposed of by all High Court Judges in the last one year. In response to the said application, the PIO had rejected the query on the grounds that he should give separate application for disposals done by each Judge everyday. Further, the PIO insisted that the applicant should give the name of the Judge and the day for which he needs the information. Earlier, the said applicant had given a simple format seeking just the name of the Judge and the number of cases disposed annually. In the light of the rejection reply of the PIO, the applicant estimated the costs of filing fresh applications which came to Rs. 1.5 lakh to get the disposal of cases of more than 50 Judges for 200 working days.
    

3. Shri Gandhi then filed an appeal with the Appellate authority; i.e., the Registrar General of Bombay High Court, on January 29, last year. The appellate authority, disposing of the appeal said that though he did not agree with the PIO’s decision that a separate application for each disposal was necessary, he said the applicant must be more specific and precise. Being aggrieved by the orders of the PIO and the appellate authority, the said applicant filed a Second Appeal with the State Information Commission (SIC) on February 2, 2007. During the course of hearing, when the SIC asked the PIO if the periodical, monthly or yearly disposal list was being compiled by the PIO, he answered in the affirmative. The SIC then passed an order that the PIO should give the information to the applicant in the format required by the applicant. Further the SIC directed to the PIO that if this is difficult then the PIO should select from the compilation of latest yearly statistics in the High Court those statements which together come close to the requirement of the applicant and copy should be provided within 15 days time, free of cost as provided u/s 6(7) of the Act.

2. Central Information Commission (Cic) passes a non-speaking order in Second Appeal

Earlier, through this column, I ventilated my grievances against the Estate Dept. of LIC, Western Zone, which is grossly corrupt. I therefore wanted to expose their corrupt practices with the aid of RTI Act. So, on my application the PIO of LIC gave some information and did not give a certified copy of the Building Inspector’s Report, claiming the same to be a confidential document. Thereafter, I filed a First Appeal before the appellate authority which in turn confirmed the order of the PIO and vaguely mentioned that the then Regional Manager, E. & O. S. took the decision, which was a illegal decision without admitting the same. Being aggrieved by the said appeal order I filed a Second Appeal before the CIC. Thereupon, after processing my appeal, the CIC called for the reply of the LIC on my appeal and asked the LIC to furnish me a copy of their reply. Thereafter, CIC asked me to send my ‘Rejoinder’ to the reply of LIC. I did so vide letter dated 3-2-2007. Thereafter, for a long time since the order was pending I sent 3 reminders to CIC for the disposal of the Second Appeal. At last the CIC disposed of the Second Appeal vide order dated 28-6-2007 which was received by me on 3-7-2007. The brief decision of the CIC is as under:–

"I have gone through the RTI request and replies received in this connection from the CPIO and Appellate Authority (AA). From the reading of the application and the replies it appears that the appellant is questioning the LIC for not providing certain facility within the time frame as requested by them. It is very heartening to know how LIC has entertained such kind of RTI application both at the level of CPIO and the AA. The application filed by the appellant is not conforming to the requirement of RTI application and it should have been rejected at the first instant with responding to the appellant at various levels. Further, the appellant has taken a stand of submitting second application (Appeal) before the Commission and he has wasted lot of time of the LIC as well as the Commission. The application is totally frivolous and therefore I dismiss the appeal."

2. The above order is self-explanatory. Thank God that I was not visited with the costs! In this connection, my objective of pressing into service RTI Act was to expose the corrupt practices prevailing in the LIC’s Estate Dept. One of the objects of RTI Act is to contain corruption. Unfortunately, it appears that the Hon’ble CIC who passed the order did not take trouble to go through the voluminous documents placed before the Commission both by the appellant and the respondent and passed a non-speaking order without digesting our stand in the matter.
    

3. I have therefore vide my petition dated July 6, 2007 requested the Hon’ble Shri Wajahat Habibullah, Chief Commissioner, CIC to recall the said non-speaking order and the appeal may be placed before the full Bench of the Commission for fresh hearing to do justice in the matter. Let us see how the Commission reacts to my said petition.

3. Recent Apex Court judgment on interpretation of statutes

Recently, the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (Cvil Appeal Nos. 1140 to 1151 of 2007 decided on 2-3-2007) (2007 (4) Mh. LJ) observed while dealing with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, keeping in mind that the said statute is beneficial one qua the third party, but that the benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. It further observed that renewal of licence where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. Once the licence is a fake one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence. And in the course of the judgment, the following guidelines in regard to the interpretation of statutes were laid down:–

1. The rule of legislative intent – When the law to be applied in a given case prescribes interpretation of statute, the Court has to ascertain the facts and then interpret the law to apply such facts. Interpretation cannot be in a vacuum or in relation to hypothetical facts. It is the function of the legislature to say what shall be the law and it is only the Court to say what the law is.
    

2. Object and intention of legislation – Ascertainment of – Court can resort to historical contextual and purposive interpretation leaving textual interpretation aside. In the course of judgment, the Apex Court took note of the opinions expressed by the learned Judges in paragraphs 34 and 35 which are reproduced below:–

34. Francis Bennion in his book Statutory Interpretation described "purposive interpretation" as under:–

"A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by –

1. following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose, or
    

2. applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose."

35. More often than not, literal interpretation of a statute or a provision of a statute results in absurdity. Therefore, while interpreting statutory provisions, the Courts should keep in mind the objectives or purpose for which statute has been enacted. Justice Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court in an article titled as "Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes" (47 Columbia Law Review 527), observed that,