Central Information Commission
S Malleswara Rao vs Parliment Of India on 17 May, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PAROI/A/2017/172581
S Malleswara Rao ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Parliament of India, Rajya ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : NIL FA : 09.08.2017 SA : 14.10.2017
Hearing : 18.06.2018/
CPIO : 05.07.2017 FAO : 12.09.2017
13.05.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, seeking information on five points pertaining to impeachment motion against Hon'ble Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, High Court of Hyderabad in Dec. 2016, including, inter-alia, (i) total number of members of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) who had signed and moved the impeachment motion along with their names and copies of the duly signed representations, State-wise, and (ii) total number of members of the Parliament Page 1 of 8 (Rajya Sabha) who withdrew support to the motion later along with their names and copies of the duly signed representations, State-wise.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that incomplete information has been provided to him as the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought regarding the names and State-wise representations given by the Members of Rajya Sabha for impeachment and those who later withdrew the motion under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. He contended that the matter has already been published by the newspapers thus, available to the public at large. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information sought for.
Hearing on 18.06.2018:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Arun Sharma, Director (Coord.) and CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that vide their reply dated 05.07.2017, point- wise reply/information has already been furnished to the appellant. The respondent stated that rest of the information (which was not provided to the appellant) is exempted under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent stated that the contents of motion as also the signatories to the Notice of Motion and names of those members who withdrew support to the motion later, etc. were never made public and all concerned documents are in the custody of Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. Such documents relating to or connected with the proceedings of the House are privileged documents and exempted under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent stated Page 2 of 8 that once a notice of motion is accepted, as per practice, they disclose the particulars suo-moto.
Interim Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, finds that hearing notice of the Commission sent to the appellant had come back undelivered with the postal department remarks "not claimed". It is observed that the Commission had sent the hearing notice on the address given by the appellant in his second appeal. Therefore, it is to be treated as deemed service of the hearing notice.
6. The definition of "Parliamentary Privileges" has been given in Chapter 8 of Parliamentary Privileges -Rajya Sabha wherein nature of privileges has been defined as follows:
"According to Erskine May, "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of certain rights enjoyed by each House collectively... and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Some privileges rest solely on the law and custom of Parliament, while others have been defined by statute. Certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members. Other rights and immunities, such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of Page 3 of 8 its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. Fundamentally, however, it is only as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House that the individual privileges are enjoyed by members. "When any of these rights and immunities is disregarded or attacked, the offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable under the law of Parliament. Each House also claims the right to punish contempts, that is, actions which, while not breaches of any specific privilege, obstruct or impede it in the performance of its functions, or are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its members or its officers."
7. In view of the above, the Commission observes that CPIO, with approval of competent authority, should inform in writing as to why parting of this information would constitute a breach of privilege of Parliament. The respondent is directed to inform this Commission in terms of the above for further consideration of the matter.
Hearing on 13.05.2019:
8. The appellant Shri S Malleswara Rao attended the hearing through video- conferencing. The respondent Shri Arun Sharma, Director (Coord.) and CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi was present in person.
9. The appellant submitted that incomplete information has been provided to him as the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought regarding the names and State-wise representations given by the Members of Rajya Sabha for impeachment and those who later withdrew the motion under Section 8(1)(c) of Page 4 of 8 the RTI Act. He contended that the matter has already been published by the newspapers thus, available to the public at large. The appellant also stated that he had sought a copy of the Rules/procedure relating to acceptance and withdrawal of motion by MPs. However, no information has been provided to him by the CPIO in that regard.
10. The respondent submitted that in compliance of the Commission's instructions issued vide interim order dated 18.06.2018, the CPIO vide letter dated 27.09.2018 has, with approval of Hon'ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha, informed as to why parting of information in the case would constitute a breach of privilege of Parliament. The respondent further stated that giving a notice of motion by any member in the course of discharge of his parliamentary duties is covered within the meaning and scope of the term 'Proceedings in Parliament'. Hence, disclosure of details of members who gave the Motion and some who subsequently withdrew their names under the RTI Act may open the parliamentary conduct of such Members to public scrutiny. Such disclosure may not only indirectly influence the members in discharge of their parliamentary duties but has a tendency to influence their independence in the future performance of their duties, thereby would cause breach of privilege. Hence, the names of the MPs who signed and later withdrew the motion for impeachment as well as their representations cannot be provided to the appellant as they are connected with the proceedings of the House. Hence, the disclosure of the same would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament. Thus, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. The respondent further clarified that merely because some newspapers published regarding notice of removal of the Judge in the instant case does not imply that the Secretariat should part with Page 5 of 8 the document/information about the proceedings of the House or its members. The respondent also clarified that the information sought vide point no. 5 of the RTI application was not clear and thus, incomprehensible to the CPIO. Hence, no information could be provided to the appellant in this regard.
Decision:
11. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that in order to enable the Parliament or the State Legislature or their individual members to perform their functions effectively and without any impediments or interference from any quarter, certain privileges are conferred upon them under Article 105 of the Constitution which relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and its members (and Article 194 of the Constitution which relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of State Legislatures and their members). According to Sir Thomas Erskine May, "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively is a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament ........ and by Members of each House of Parliament individually, without which they cannot discharge their functions." The Commission notes that giving a notice of Motion by any Member in the course of discharge of his Parliamentary duties is covered within the meaning and scope of the term 'Proceedings in Parliament'. Hence, disclosure of details of members who gave the Motion and some who subsequently withdrew their names under RTI may open the parliamentary conduct of such Members to public scrutiny. Such disclosure may not only indirectly influence the members in discharge of their parliamentary duties but has a tendency to influence their independence in the future performance of their duties, thereby would cause breach of privilege.
Page 6 of 8Therefore, the information sought for vide point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. Hence, an appropriate response has been furnished to the appellant in respect of point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application. The Commission, however, directs the respondent to provide the relevant extract of the Rules/procedure relating to acceptance and withdrawal of motion by MPs as sought vide point no. 5 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्यसूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 14.05.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीतारम मूती) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 7 of 8 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House, Annexe, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House, Annexe, New Delhi- 110001.
3. Shri S Malleswara Rao Page 8 of 8