The Times of India 31th October 2008 P. 11 New Delhi
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in
A mouth piece for common man A place of legal knowldge A platform for discussing legal issues
In a move that smacks of bureaucratic red tapism, the Central Information Commission (CIC) will no longer allow review of its decisions. A recent change in the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007, now makes it clear that CIC’s decision can only be reviewed through a writ filed in the high court and Supreme Court.
According to chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, the rules were not in consonance with law. ‘‘We have changed the rules as under law a court cannot review its own decisions. The CIC does not have the review power unless there is an error of law or facts.’’ Habibullah said that applicants had misunderstood the rules and so a correction had been made. Information commissioners admit privately that the number of review applications had begun to rise and this was becoming difficult to handle.
The rule had earlier said that an appellant can make an application to the chief information commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It was left on the discretion of the CIC to ‘‘consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.’’ The decision has now been restricted to read — ‘‘A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final’’.
RTI activists, on the other hand, have cried foul over the changes. Col Lokesh Batra said, ‘‘Now a complainant can no longer ask for special leave to review a decision.’’ Said Subhash Chandra Agarwal who has filed two review petitions that the decision will impact RTI. ‘‘In my application regarding information on Padma awardees, I had asked how it was possible for a jury spread across India to shortlist 100 names from the thousands in just one or two meetings. I had five queries but only one was answered,’’ he said. Agarwal said that there should be a provision within the rules for a review by a larger Bench. ‘‘This will cut down on litigation costs and also bring about a consistency in the performance of information commissioners,’’ he added.
The Times of India 30th October 2008 P. 13 New Delhi
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in
Gives Orissa Slew Of Orders To Bring Back Normalcy
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to order a CBI probe into the nun’s rape case and asked as to why the victim was not participating in the test identification parade of the accused to nail the culprit despite having stated that she can identify the perpetrators. “If you do not cooperate with the police in investigating the case and finding out the truth, there is little this court can do,” the court told Archbishop Raphael Cheenath, who was virtually pleading on her behalf to say the victim had no faith in the state police. Except for refusing CBI probe into the rape case, the SC gave a slew of directions to the Naveen Patnaik government, all aimed at bringing back normalcy in the riot-hit areas and giving protection to the Christian community, which expressed apprehension of being targeted again during the coming Christmas festivities. Brushing aside the Centre’s reservations, a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal ordered all the additional central paramiliatary forces, which were rushed to the state when rioting was at its peak, to remain stationed there till December-end. It also asked the state government to immediately pay compensation to the victims, give sufficient protection to all relief and rehabilitation workers, including those from Christian NGOs, working to provide succor to victims in relief camps in Kandhmal district and adjoining areas. On the contentious issue of Rs 3 crore demanded by petitioner and Archbishop Raphael Cheenath for rebuilding churches demolished and damaged by mobs, the apex court was at a loss to understand how grants could be given for rebuilding damaged orphanages, hospitals and schools run by the community, but not for the reconstruction of churches. Appearing for the state, senior advocate K K Venugopal said the Naveen Patnaik government was following a central guideline framed for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots when grants were given to charitable organisations run by the Sikh community but not for building damaged gurdwaras. However, he said the state was ready to contribute if the court so directs. The Bench asked the state government to generously consider providing grants for reconstruction of churches and encouraging inter-community meetings to bring back peace and normalcy in the riothit areas so that communal harmony prevails. The nun’s rape case was the focus of the proceedings that went on for more than two hours before the Chief Justice’s Bench. When the court wondered as to why the nun was not cooperating with the police in the investigation, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioner, pooh-poohed the state’s claim of a fair investigation. He said the nun had alleged that after the rape she was in protection of policemen who did not do anything when a mob dragged her out, stripped her and paraded her in the entire village. No policeman has been punished for derelection in duty, he alleged. Venugopal pointed out that these allegations were not part of the original complaint. Gonsalves said this attitude of not trusting a rape victim had pained her immensely and she now felt that there was no point in pursuing the matter as the sinners would be punished in their next birth.
No faith in the panels probing riots: Archbishop
Archbishop Raphael Cheenath told the Supreme Court that the Christian community in Orissa has no faith in the ability of the two inquiry commissions headed by retired high court judges to find the truth in the communal riots of December 2007 and the August 2008. The Naveen Patnaik government had appointed the Justice Panigrahi Commission to probe the communal riots during Christmas of 2007 and has now appointed another inquiry commission headed by Justice S C Mohapatra to probe the riots that broke out after the killing of religious leader Swami Lakshmananand on August 23, 2008. Appearing for the Archbishop, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves said the commissions had refused to adjourn hearing even when riots were going on and the community was finding it difficult to arrange for advocates to present its case.
Source:- The Times of India 23 Oct. 08 P. 13 New Delhi
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in