Chief Information Commissioner Has Power To Form Benches & Frame Regulations For Smooth Functioning Of Central Information Commission: Supreme Court

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held –

“Crucially, Section 12(4) of the RTI Act grants CIC(Chief Information Commissioner) the general superintendence, direction, and management of the Commission's affairs. This provision implies that the CIC has comprehensive authority to oversee and direct the functioning. This broad section allows the CIC to implement measures that ensure smooth and efficient functioning of the Commission, including the formation of benches of the Commission, including making decisions necessary for its effective operation.”

The court highlighted that administrative bodies require the freedom to establish and implement internal procedures and regulations aligned with their specific mandates and operational requirements, free from restrictive interpretations of their powers that undermine their operational autonomy.

“The principle of non interference is not merely an administrative convenience but a cornerstone for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that these bodies can serve the public interest effectively. When these institutions are allowed to function without external pressures, they can make decisions based on expertise and objective criteria, which enhances their credibility and public trust”, the court added.

The court was dealing with the Commission's appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment dated May 21, 2010. The HC had quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007, and held that the CIC did not have the power to constitute benches. Regulation 22 of the 2007 Regulations allowed for the formation of benches.

The matter began with an application by one Sarbjeet Roy seeking information about the modification of the Master Plan of Delhi for 2021 and requesting the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to fulfil its obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act.

On September 22, 2009, the CIC ordered the formation of a committee to investigate the DDA's compliance with Section 4 and submit a report. The DDA, aggrieved by this order, filed a writ petition before the Delhi HC, challenging the summoning of its Vice-Chairman by the CIC.

The HC expanded the scope to the CIC's authority under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act and ultimately quashed the CIC's regulations as ultra vires. The HC quashed the Regulations on the ground that the RTI Act did not explicitly provide legislative power to the CIC.

The HC held that the CIC lacked the power to delegate its inquiry responsibilities to a committee, exceeded its jurisdiction in framing the 2007 regulations, and did not have the authority to summon high-ranking officials like the DDA Vice-Chairman.

The Supreme Court set aside the HC's order. The court said that the absence of an explicit provision for benches did not negate the CIC's authority to form them.

“The absence of an explicit provision for Benches does not negate the CIC's authority to constitute them, as such powers are implicitly included within the scope of the CIC's general superintendence and management responsibilities”, said the court.

Section 15 of the RTI Act is a mirroring provision to section 12 and is applicable to State Information Commissions. The court opined that the broad language of Sections 12(4) and 15(4) granting wide-ranging authority to the CIC and State Information Commissioners suggests “the legislative intent was to provide these officials with broad authority to ensure their commissions function effectively.”

The court favoured a broader interpretation of the RTI Act, emphasizing the necessity of efficient case disposal and effective implementation of the right to information. The court said that the RTI Act must be interpreted purposively, considering its broader objectives of promoting transparency and accountability in public authorities.

The court relied to judgments in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000) and Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) which highlighted the broad ambit of the words "superintendence, direction, and control" in the context of powers of the ECI under Article 324 of the Constitution.

The court elucidated that under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, the CIC has the authority to issue various forms of administrative guidelines, directives, and instructions essential for the effective management of its affairs. While the 2007 Regulations could have been called 'Circulars,' 'By-laws,' etc., the use of the term "Regulations" should not detract from their function, which is like any other administrative orders an authority like the CIC might promulgate to ensure the smooth operation of its duties, the court held.

“Focusing narrowly on the nomenclature and the absence of an explicit provision for Regulation-making within the RTI Act would undermine the broader purpose and intent of the same”, the court said.

The court underscored the importance of the Commission's autonomy for its effective functioning, stressing that undue interference in its administrative functions would impede its ability to handle a large volume of cases efficiently.

“We believe that the autonomy of the Central Information Commission is of paramount importance to its effective functioning. Any undue interference in its administrative functions, such as the power to constitute benches, would significantly impede its ability to handle the large volume of cases efficiently and expeditiously. The CIC must be allowed to operate independently and exercise its powers of superintendence, direction, and management without external constraints.”

Therefore, the court set aside the HC's judgment, upholding the CIC's powers to frame regulations for the constitution of benches under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act.

Attorney General of India R Venkataramani appeared for the Central Information Commission and Advocate Nitin Mishra appeared for the Delhi Development Authority.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 2230 of 2012

Case Title – Central Information Commission v. DDA & Anr.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 465