Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It was submitted that an elected representative does not have an organized office and, as such, he/she does not have any mechanism either to receive RTI applications or to receive RTI fee. The elected representative would have nobody who could be notified either as PIO or First Appellate Authority by him. It was submitted that the RTI Act intended to make only such functionaries "public authorities", which have an organized office and an established hierarchy of officers.

It was decided that the matter should be further examined and heard and the Commission should also invite jurists and legal luminaries to assist in arriving at a decision. It was also decided that a Public Notice would also be given requesting public/ organizations in general to submit duly verified written submissions concerning the above aspects. Consequently a public notice was issued and a D.O. letter addressed to following:

DECISION NOTICE Having considered the various arguments, submissions and comments received by us we would incline toward the view of Hon'ble P.B. Sawant, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India who in his opinion of 14-11-08 has held as follows:

"The RTI Act 2005 does not extend to the individual representatives of the people, whether they are members of the parliament or of the local bodies. The accountability of all the public functionaries may not be ensured by the same means and methods. The manner of securing their accountability may differ depending on the nature and the character of the functions they discharge. At present the people's representatives are answerable to the collective demand or opinion of their constituents, whether expressed from time to time or at the time of the elections. Those who answer their constituents and satisfy a majority of them, may retain their seats in the respective bodies. Though it is a popular, and not a legal mandate, and not as satisfactory, it is the only safe guard of the people at present."