Lagatar24 Desk
Fifteen sitting and retired Information Commissioners (IC) have written a letter to Chief Justice of India NV Ramana against High Courts routinely invoking their writ jurisdiction to stay orders passed by ICs under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
The ICs have asked the Court to treat the letter as a suo motu petition and issue appropriate directions to make RTI effective in line with the Constitution, reports Bar and Bench.
As per the letter, Section 23 of the RTI Act provides that “no court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.”
Despite the same, many High Courts stay orders of ICs without giving reasons describing how the challenge would fall under the writ jurisdiction of the Court, the letter said. These include orders calling for disclosure of information as well as imposition of penalty, it added.
“You may please consider directing courts to give reasons how the challenge falls in the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. At the very least orders of imposition of penalty should not be stayed as no irrevocable harm can come to the penalised official. It should also be ensured that if any stay order is given it should give reasons for staying the statutory order of the Commission. In case the penalty order is quashed the amount can be refunded by the exchequer. They should also give effect to Article 226 (3) when dealing with petitions asking for a stay order against Information Commission’s decisions,” the letter stated.
The letter highlighted the scope of powers of the Writ of Certiorari as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and ors. In that case, it was held that:
“Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction – by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction – by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.”
Moreover, it was pointed out that Article 226(3) of the Constitution clearly lays down that where a stay has been obtained without the participation of the respondents, the High Court has to dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which the petition for vacation of the stay is made.
If this is not done, the stay should stand vacated. The letter pointed out that this is not being implemented across the nation, while calling for the apex court to reiterate this aspect.
