Central Information Commission
Ppm Ashraf vs Parliament Of India on 19 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/PAROI/A/2022/159750
PPM Ashraf ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House/ Annex
New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/09/2023
Date of Decision : 18/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/10/2022
CPIO replied on : 18/11/2022
First appeal filed on : 23/11/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 12/12/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2022 seeking information as under:
"Right to information Act Information sought from Hon Committee on Subordinate Legislation Lok Sabha and Rajya Saba.1
As adjudged by Drafting Committee of Constituent ASSEMBLY OF India Democracy is a coordinate system of People since every voter is having unitary value of vote irrespective of wealth, position, power etc. Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, Chief Justice, Rich Person, poor person all have unitary vote value unlike other systems. Legislature also is characterised by unitary value of vote irrespective of position or power, Judiciary also have unitary value of vote. This coordinate system of People is governed by cartesean law of coordinate which dictates that a Higher Authority cannot annul the power of a Lower Authority and immunity to violation of law in good faith is to be adjudicated by Highest Authority. This system is practiced in all Democracies whether parliamentary or otherwise.
The colonial system was not a democratic system but a system introduced by Warren Hasting corresponding to Charles I system which perpetrated nepotism and corruption leading to tyranny and oppression in England culminating in Execution of Minister and beheading of Charles 1. The council members of Warren Hasting opposed the system on the ground that it results in nepotism and corruption. But Hasting continued the system. After retirement of Hasting a council member moved a Motion of Impeachment against Warren Hasting passed by House of Commons. In the House of Lords Hasting took defence that he introduced the system contradictory to British Legal system of cabinet clearance of complete bill inclusive of rules regulation details of notification etc and adjudication of immunity to violation of law in good faith because he came to India to safeguard British Interest and British Legal system is not conducive to promote British Interest. He was exonerated by House of Lords. After this in order to stall further Motion of Impeachment by British Parliament against successor British officers in the colony a covenant was incorporated in all colonial acts with immunity to violation of law in good faith. In Right to Information Act also section 21 is protection of action taken in good faith. In colonial India the people of India did not possess democratic rights of cabinet clearance of complete bill inclusive of rules regulation details of notification etc. and did not have democratic right to adjudicate immunity to violation of law in good faith practiced in all parliamentary democracies. The relationship between people of India are Slaves under British Masters with British Masters having right to adjudicate immunity to violation of law in good faith.
After passing of Indian Independence Act safeguarding British Interest no longer exists and immunity to violation of law in good faith to British officers to stall Impeachment motion in British Parliament is redundant.2
Sardar Vallabhai Patel and others expressed concerns about the non- visibility of any change after independence being felt by People. In constituent assembly of India proceedings Dr BR Ambedkar moved the article of Drafting committee to confer power on government in the appointment of judges of HC and SC. Voting members moved article opposing the article of Drafting committee to confer the power on the people of India stating that if power is conferred on government in the appointment of the Judges of HC and SC the Judges so appointed are likely to favour the appointing authority in issues between citizens and government. On behalf of Drafting committee based on adoption of British legal system of cabinet clearance of complete bill inclusive of rules regulation details of notification adopted by constituent assembly of India and based on power to jury to adjudicate immunity to violation of law in good faith Dr BR Ambedkar as authorised by Drafting Committee affirmed as under:
Constituent Assembly of India proceedings 24th May 1949 Part II Hon. DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR: The Judiciary decides cases in which the government has, if at all, the remotest interest in fact no interest at all.
The Judiciary is engaged in deciding the issues between citizens and very rarely between citizens and government. Consequently the chances of government influencing the conduct of a member of Judiciary are very remote.
This affirmation led to the adoption of article of Drafting committee by voting, voting members who opposed the article also voting of the article of drafting committee in view of British legal system effective after 15 August 1947 and adjudication right to jury for adjudication of immunity to violation of law in good faith as practiced in all parliamentary democracies.
1. Please confirm that Hon Subordinate Committee is aware of the oath of Executive to preserve protect and defend Constitution and law.
2. Please confirm by circumspection of the oath that there is no provision in oath to violate law in good faith.
3. Please confirm by circumspection by reproducing section 21 of Right to Information Act, section 76 to 95 of Indian Penal code, section 32 of Sarfaesi act have provision to violate law in good faith.
4. Please confirm that the provision to violate law in good faith is annulling article 61 of Constitution of India as immunity to violate law in good faith was incorporated in the colonial acts to stall impeachment motion against British Officers who succeed Warren Hasting and please confirm that no 3 other British officers received Motion of Impeachment after Motion of Impeachment against Warren Hasting.
As Business of safeguarding the President of India from a Motion of Impeachment by future Parliaments is allocated to Legislative Department and Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs as per advice by Department of Legal Affairs and because of lethargy to safeguard the President of India from a Motion of Impeachment by future Parliaments and since as per constituent assembly of India proceedings anyone who commits any offence or acts which expose the President of India to a risk of being impeached will not have any kind of immunity confirmed by DOP&T vide dopat e 2016 18343 we are endorsing the copy of the application to Hon President of India to safeguard self from a Motion of Impeachment by future Parliaments by conditional assent to Bills requiring clearance of subordinate legislation by the cabinet and adjudication of immunity to violation of law in good faith by Jury of the body Electorate."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.11.2022 stating as under:
"The requisite information is not covered under the clause (f), (i) and (j) of Section 2, chapter 1st of the RTI Act, 2005, as no such records or files are in the custody of this Section."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2022. FAA's order dated 12.12.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Sanjeev Chandra, CPIO along with Mohd. Salamuddin, Addl. Director present in person.
The Commission at the outset observed that the Appellant has not made any case under the RTI Act as the material placed on record by him is a mere commentary on Constitutional provisions and other allied subject matters.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has not sought for any information as prescribed under the RTI Act.4
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and as well as from the narration of the Appellant during the hearing is at a loss to comprehend the relief that is being sought for under the RTI Act in the instant matter. Neither the information sought for in the RTI Application conforms to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act nor are the grounds of appeal amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5