Central Information Commission
Shri Girish Chandra Mishra And Others vs Ms Sonia Gandhi Mp, Shri Rahul Gandhi Mp, ... on 18 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.CIC/TEMP/2008/001 dated 7.2.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Appellant - Shri Girish Chandra Mishra, Kanpur
Dr. Awadesh Mishra, Sultanpuri
Shri Sartaj Ahmed, New Delhi
Shri Radhey Shyam s/o Shri Ishwar Deen, Banda
Respondent - Ms Sonia Gandhi MP
Shri Rahul Gandhi MP
Shri Sahib Singh, MLA
Smt Sunita Sharma, Municipal Councilor
Facts:
We have received five complaints as follows:
1. Shri Sartaj Ahmed of Yamuna Vihar applied to Smt. Savita Sharma, Municipal Councilor on 12.10.2007 seeking information on development works and lighting arrangements in her constituency, but received no response. His complaint before is as follows :
"You are requested to kindly order for supply of information by the Municipal Councilor by using your Constitutional Power, so that powers vested in Right to Information Act and Constitution could be maintained."
2. Dr Awadesh Mishra made an application to Shri Rahul Gandhi, M.P., Amethi on 9.4.2007 seeking information on recommendations made by the M.P.or his representatives to Ministries/Departments recommending assistance to NGOs. On not receiving a response he approached the Speaker, Lok Sabha on 7.6.'07 pleading that direction is given to the MP to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, to which he received a reply from Deputy Secretary Lok Sabha Secretariat on 21.6.'07 stating that the information sought was not held by the Lok Sabha Secretariat and implying that an MP was not a public authority. Dr Mishra's complaint before us is as follows:
"You are requested to kindly arrange to get the information from Shri Rahul Gandhi, MP from Amethi under the Right to Information Act 2005."1
3. Shri Girish Chandra Mishra, Advocate of Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur made an application to Ms. Sonia Gandhi, MP, Chair, UPA on 20.8.07 seeking an appointment, but received no response. His complaint of 11.1.08 before us is as follows:
"Sir, under the law for Public Welfare, kindly direct/order Smt. Sonia Gandhi to supply the desired information, which will be a kind act. "
4. Shri Radhey Shyam s/o Ishwar Deen of Village Uttarhat, Distt. Banda made an application to Smt. Sonia Gandhi, MP on 16.10.07 seeking the following information :
"If my requests for information are illegal or non maintainable or I have no right to make such appeal, then matter ends in the hands of Ms. Archana on 16.10.2007. Sir, I am a small worker, neither I demand a post, nor respect, or Donation or grant. My all requests are in the interest of public. I don't want to go to Media. I just want to eradicate corruption."
In this case his complaint before us is as below:
"Sir, it is requested that Ms. Sonia Gandhi may be called immediately and asked to provide information besides paying penalty @ Rs. 250/- per day for delay in supply."
5. In a request of 12.12.07 Shri Sartaj Ahmed of Yamuna Vihar Delhi sought the following information from Shri Saheb Singh Chouhan, MLA, Yamuna Vihar :
• How much has been received during last four years for jobs relating to development.
• In which area, what work has been carried out.
• How much money has been spent on each job?
• Which Agency/contractor has undertaken the job? His name and address be furnished.
• Under which Department, these jobs were carried out.
• Details of concerned Officer/Engineer be intimated.2
On not receiving a response. the complaint of Shri Sartaj Ahmed before us is as follows:
"Although a period of 2-1/2 months have passed, yet neither the MLA has furnished the information nor shown any reaction. It is therefore, prayed that by using your constitutional powers, the B.J.P's proud M.L.A. may be directed to provide me the requisite information. So that RTI Act may survive and such MLAs may form the habit to respect Constitution and furnish replies to the general public."
The issue before us is whether the information sought by these applicants from public representatives, mentioned above, can qualify as information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and if so, whether the persons to whom the information is addressed will qualify as public authorities. Because the issue is one, all complaints have been grouped as one.
The complaint was scheduled for hearing on admissibility on 18.7.2008. Only complainant Dr. Awadesh Mishra is present. Although informed of the hearing by our notice of 06.06.'08. the other complainants have opted not to be present. Complainant Dr. Awadesh Mishra submitted that an MP being a public servant, elected and paid by the public, is a public authority.
The definition of a public authority under the RTI Act is as follows:
Sec. 2(h) "public authority" means any authority or body1 or institution of self- government established or constituted--
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
Government,
and includes any--
1
Emphasis ours
3
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
It is the plea of the complainant Dr. Awadesh Mishra that an MP is an authority constituted under the Constitution.
INTERIM DECISION The question before us is whether an individual can constitute an authority in himself, which can then be defined as a Public Authority. Under Article 105 of the Constitution of India, the provision regarding MPs is as follows:
105. Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof. -- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of any thing said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. (3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.
4106. Salaries and allowances of members. -- Members of either House of Parliament shall be entitled to receive such salaries and allowances as may from time to time be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that respect is so made, allowances at such rates and upon such conditions as were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution applicable in the case of members of the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India.
An MP has therefore been conferred a specific authority by the Constitution, in return for which he receives remuneration from public funds. Before we will take a decision in this regard, however it is important that the interested parties in the present complaint are given an opportunity to be heard as to whether they can be so considered. Since the Lok Sabha Secretariat has already taken the stand by implication that an MP is not a public authority as defined u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 the CPIO Lok Sabha Secretariat will appear before us on 15.9.2008 at 4.00 pm. In addition, a public notice will be issued for the attention of all elected representatives of Parliament or the GNCT Assembly who may personally, or through a representative duly authorised, wish to appear before us on the same date and time.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this interim decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 18.7.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 18.7.2008 5