Justice Sathasivam's major judgements include the Mumbai blasts case and that of Pakistani scientist Mohammed Khalil Chisti
Justice P Sathasivam was on Friday sworn in as the 40th Chief Justice of India (CJI) by President Pranab Mukherjee. He took over the post from Justice Altamas Kabir, who served as the CJI for over nine months.
Justice Sathasivam was elevated to the Supreme Court in August, 2007 and would demit office on 26 April 2014.
Justice Sathasivam said he would work towards reducing the backlog of cases by “fixing time limit for arguments, submitting written notes”.
Some major judgements by Justice Sathasivam include the Mumbai blasts case and that of Pakistani scientist Mohammed Khalil Chisti.
A bench of Justice Sathasivam and Justice B S Chauhan had upheld the conviction of actor Sanjay Dutt and several others in the Mumbai blasts case.
Justice Sathasivam, 64, took oath in the name of God in a brief ceremony at Darbar Hall of Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Vice-President Hamid Ansari, UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, her Rajya Sabha counterpart Arun Jaitley, NDA Working Chairperson Lal Krishna Advani, CPI leader D Raja, several union ministers were present at the ceremony.
While some activists have started filing complaints before the CIC about political parties flouting its directions, few other activists feel that the Commission's jurisdiction over a 'complaint' is discretionary but its 'appellate jurisdiction' is statutory. Therefore, activists should first file an RTI and then complaint to the CIC
With the political parties defying the Central Information Commission (CIC)’s orders to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs), Appellate Authorities (AAs) and implement voluntary disclosure of information under Section 4 of the RTI Act, by 15th July, several activists are lodging complaints before the Commission. However, contrary to this view, some RTI activists believe that since the CIC has exhausted its powers under sub-section 19(8)(ii) of the RTI Act, it would be better if activists first file an RTI and after not receiving information from political parties should file appeal before the Commission.
RTI activist Sarbajit Roy, who is also national convenor of India Against Corruption said, "...whereas the CIC's 'complaint jurisdiction' is discretionary in its application, its 'appellate jurisdiction' is statutory and compulsory in its application as upheld by the Supreme Court and various High Courts."
On 3 June 2013, a three-member bench of CIC in two complaints under the RTI directed as:
92 ... "The order of the Single Bench of this Commission in Complaint No. CIC/MISC/2009/0001 and CIC/MISC/2009/0002 is hereby set aside and it is held that All India Congress Committee (AICC)/Indian National Congress (INC), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (Marxist)-CPI(M), Communist Party of India (CPI), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) are public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
93. The Presidents, General/Secretaries of these Political Parties are hereby directed to designate CPIOs and the Appellate Authorities at their headquarters in 6 weeks’ time. The CPIOs so appointed will respond to the RTI applications extracted in this order in 04 weeks’ time. Besides, the Presidents/General Secretaries of the above mentioned Political Parties are also directed to comply with the provisions of section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act by way of making voluntary disclosures on the subjects mentioned in the said clause."
The time of six weeks given in this order elapsed on 16 July 2013, from the dare these six political parties were expected to comply with the directions (of CIC) to appoint their CPIOs to receive and deal with RTI requests from the citizens.
Upon the date of 16 July 2013 having come and gone without the parties having designated their CPIOs, a section of RTI activists have gone about submitting complaints to the CIC that the parties have flouted the CIC's directions.
According to some RTI activists, such general complaints, without actual RTI applications being submitted, are not maintainable under the provisions of the RTI Act for the following reason…
A) The CIC has already declared the parties to be "public authority" and directed them to designate their CPIOs and Appellate Authorities within a specific time. The CIC has therefore exhausted its powers under sub-section 19(8)(ii) of the RTI Act. There is nothing further the CIC can do in its complaint jurisdiction, if a political party refuses to comply with its directions to appoint a CPIO.
Therefore, Roy said, the optimum strategy for RTI activists now would be to proceed as though the political parties have complied with the CIC's directions and start lodging / sending their RTI requests to the Headquarters of the concerned political parties addressed to the "Central Public Information Officer / RTI Act". The same should be done immediately, as it is very likely that some party will obtain a stay order soon against the CIC's directions, or perhaps the RTI Act itself will be amended temporarily through the ordinance route.
The persons who have lodged their RTIs prior to the stay / ordinance are liable to treated as a separate class and will have liberty to approach CIC for relief / information despite a subsequent stay order.
According to Roy, the CIC's decision is poorly drafted and is unlikely to stand up to judicial scrutiny in the long run. "In particular, the CIC has not dealt with the contentions urged by the NCP and CPI, to the effect that political parties are bodies of private persons statutorily reporting to the Election Commission, and that all their information which is available to the Election Commission under any law can be accessed by citizens from the Election Commission or other state authorities under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Any other interpretation would create an absurd situation whereby citizens can get information under RTI from public authorities beyond what is available to supervisory Constitutional authorities or even Parliament under statutes. That it is such poor quality decisions emanating from the CIC which caused the Supreme Court last year to impugn the Information Commissioners for their lack of judicial mind," he said.
Roy said on 17 July 2013, he sent an RTI request to the Congress Party (accessible here : https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/indiaresists/2013-07/msg00051.html ) asking for the following information related to the Party's Vice President Rahul Gandhi's widely reported statement of 14 April 2012 "I am a Brahmin...and General Secretary in the Congress Party".
(i) If it is true that Shri Rahul Gandhi was General Secretary of the party on 14 April 2012.
ii) If it is true that Shri Rahul Gandhi was a Brahmin on 14 April 2012.
iii) Provide me copies of all the supporting documents on basis of which these claims / statements were made by Shri Rahul Gandhi. In the alternative, the rejoinder, if any, to the newspapers concerned about their reportage and its veracity.
iv) Provide me the extract(s) from audited Account Books of INC party to show that Shri Rahul Gandhi (senior office bearer of INC Party) has been timely in depositing 1% of his annual income as required under the published Rules/Regulations of the Indian National Congress Party.
Roy said when the Congress Party evades replying to him, he intends to move to the CIC under its Appellate jurisdiction to get penalties levied for 'repeated and wilful refusals to accept and deal with RTI requests' if the said information is not supplied.
The CIC said after the lapse of twenty years, exemptions provided in the RTI Act under Section 8 (1) (a), (c) and (i) apply, and other seven exemptions will not apply. This is the 137th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application
The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) and joint assessor and collector in the Assessment and collection department at Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), to provide property numbers in Mohalla Doonger Shahadra to the appellant.
While giving this judgement on 4 February 2010, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “The PIO has interpreted Section 8(3) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act completely opposite to what it means. After the lapse of twenty years exemptions provided in Section 8 (1) (a), (c) and (i) apply, and the other seven exemptions will not apply.”
New Delhi resident Baldev Raj, on 30 July 2009, sought from the PIO a list of municipal numbers of Mohalla Doonger Shahadra before 1951 and wanted to know if new numbers were allotted by municipal committee after 1951.
The PIO did not furnish the information stating, "The information is more than 20 yrs old which attracts section 8(3) of RTI Act, 2005".
Raj, the applicant, filed his first appeal. In its order, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), directed the PIO to collect the information from Town Planning officer & provide to the appellant within 30 days.
However, the PIO did not furnish the information. Raj then approached the CIC with his second appeal.
During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC noted that after the order of the FAA, the PIO on 30 November 2009 informed the appellant that the information sought by him is not available with Town Planning Department either.
The Bench said, "The PIO has wrongly denied information on the ground that it is over 20 years old. The PIO has interpreted Section 8(3) completely opposite to what it means."
Section 8(3) of the RTI Act states...
"Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:"
Mr Gandhi said, after the lapse of twenty years exemptions provided in Section 8 (1) (a), (c) and (i) apply, and the other seven exemptions will not apply.
Subsequently after the FAA's order, the Town Planning Department has stated that MCD had not allotted numbers to properties. The appellant insisted that MCD must allot numbers to all properties but the PIO stated that MCD does not have the information on property numbers.
While allowing the appeal, Mr Gandhi directed the PIO to give the property numbers to Raj before 28 February 2010. If these (numbers) are not on records anywhere in MCD, then the PIO will state it in the reply, the CIC said.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003168/6698
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003168
Appellant : Baldev Raj
Respondent : SC Yadav
PIO & Joint Assessor and Collector
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Assessment and Collection Department (HQ)
Property tax building, Ring Road,