Information on the issue on which the Standing Committee had dropped Electoral Reforms from its agenda was denied u/s 8(1)(c) - CIC: Parliamentary Committees enjoy an exclusive authority to conduct & regulate its proceedings in the manner it deems proper
29 May, 2014On the basis of the recommendations of the Chief Election Commissioner, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha had forwarded a communication to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel Public Grievances Law & Justice for examination of the electoral reforms which was dropped in a meeting on 5.5.2010 - the appellant sought information on the issue on which the Standing Committee had decided to drop the said Electoral Reforms from its agenda which was denied citing section 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; - CIC: Parliamentary Committees enjoy an inherent and exclusive authority to conduct and regulate its proceedings in the manner it deems proper & no outside authority including courts can question this right of regulation of proceedings as stipulated in Article 105 of the Constitution of India; denial u/s section 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; upheld
ORDER
Shri C.L. Pawar, the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 24.05.2013 before the Commission against the respondent Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi for failing to provide the requested information in response to his RTI application dated 14.11.2012. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Sanjeev Chandra, Joint Director and Shri Satish Mesra, Asstt. Director.
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 14.11.2012 addressed to the CPIO, Ministry of Law & Justice, Legislative Department, sought information on seven points in respect of communication dated 27.09.2004 vide which the then Chairman Rajya Sabha had referred the matter concerning electoral reforms to the concerned Parliamentary Standing Committee for examination. The CPIO, Legislative Department vide letter No. 12(7)/2012-RTI dated 17.1.2013 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat vide letter No. RS/2(52)/2013-RTI dated 7.2.2013 replied to the appellant as follows:
“Point No. 1 – The relevant Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II enclosed with the reply;
Point Nos. 4-6 – The Committee while considering the electoral reforms examined the issue viz. Disqualification of persons from contesting elections on frames of charges against them for certain offences. The Committee’s 18th Report deals with this subject and this report was presented to Parliament on 15th March, 2007. Besides, the 16th and 33rd Reports of the Committee deal with Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, 2006 and Representation of People (Second Amendment) Bill, 2008. The reports were presented to Parliament on 5th December, 2006 and 18th February, 2009. The reports are available on Rajya Sabha website. As per convention, proceedings of the meetings, record of the Committee is treated as confidential unless the Committee decides to make it or part of it public, after reports thereon are prepared. In view of above, the information sought for vide Points No. 4, 5 and 6 cannot be made available to him”.
3. However, not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal on 27.2.2013 before the FAA, Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The FAA vide order No. RS/2(52)/2013-RTI dated 4.4.2013 while upholding the reply of the CPIO held as follows – “Regarding Point No. 3 of the appeal the appellant is informed that the proceedings of Parliamentary Committees are confidential and its deliberations come in public domain only to the extent and in the form of their reports which such Committees present to the House from time to time. Direction No. 74 of Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha states that ‘All documents, representations or memoranda addressed to a Committee and receipt in the Secretariat form part of the records of the Committee and can neither be withdrawn nor altered without the knowledge and approval of the Committee.’ These directions are applicable equally to the Committees in the Rajya Sabha because, so far as Committees are concerned, the procedure and practice is identical in both the Houses. In this context, attention of the appellant is invited to the observations in the Rajya Sabha at Work (2006 edition) wherein it has been stated at page 682 that ‘The papers, circulated to the Committee are treated as confidential and the contents thereof cannot be divulged to anyone without the permission of the Chairman of the Committee.’ These directions/observation do establish that the records of the Committee are confidential until the Committee report matters to the House. In the light of the above position, to continue with the examination of a subject or to drop the subject falls within the discretionary powers of the Parliamentary Committee. In the instant case, this convention is backed by privilege of the House and its Committees as stipulated in Article 105 of the Constitution of India which enshrines ‘Powers, privileges etc. of the Houses of the Parliament and Members and Committees thereof.’ Parliamentary Committees enjoy an inherent and exclusive authority to conduct and regulate its proceedings in the manner, it deems proper and no outside authority including courts can question this right of regulation of proceedings. Such matters are also provided protections from disclosure under the RTI Act vide Section 8(1) (c). As regards the reasons for dropping the subject sought by the appellant vide Point No. 6 of his application, it is stated that public authorities are not required to respond queries that seeking reasons, justifications, opinion, suggestions, views etc.”
4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant states that it was informed in some earlier RTI case by the Ministry of Law & Justice that on the basis of the recommendations of the Chief Election Commission, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha had forwarded a communication on 27.9.2004 to the departmental related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel Public Grievances Law & Justice for examination of the electoral reforms on 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. proposals. It was further informed by the Ministry that the Standing Committee, in its meeting held on 5.5.2010 dropped the subject “Electoral Reforms” from its agenda. In this context information was sought on the issue and mainly on which the Standing Committee had decided to drop the said Electoral Reforms from its agenda. The appellant alleges that the CPIO has virtually refused to provide information on the said point by taking the plea that as per convention, the proceedings of the meetings are treated as confidential. The FAA also declined to issue any direction to the CPIO to provide necessary information. The FAA has also taken reliance on other conventions for not providing the information in question.
5. The Commission is of the view that Parliamentary Committees enjoy an inherent and exclusive authority to conduct and regulate its proceedings in the manner it deems proper and no outside authority including courts can question this right of regulation of proceedings as stipulated in Article 105 of the Constitution of India. The respondent public authority therefore has no disclosure obligation under the provisions of Section 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; of the RTI Act. In this regard the FAA has passed an elaborate order which is upheld.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri C.L. Pawar v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000925/SS