"Communication And Consultation Between Speaker Of Lok Sabha And Leader Of Opposition On Extension Of Tenure Of Secretary General Not Covered By Section 8(1)(c)Of The RTI": Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court recently directed the Central Information Commission to give details on the communication and consultation between Leader of Opposition and Speaker of Lok Sabha about granting of a one year extension to the Secretary General, Lok Sabha Shri T.K Vishwanathan holding that such information was not protected by 'parliamentary privilege' under section 8(1)(c ) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order by the Central Information Commission in response to an application in 2011 made by the petitioner before the Central Public Information Officer, seeking response to 13 specific queries along with 2 omnibus queries related to extension of the tenure of the then Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, who was appointed on 1.10.2010 and granted extension of tenure w.e.f 31.08.2011 during the term of the 15th Lok Sabha. The queries arose from a news report titled "Spat brews as BJP opposes Speaker on LS official's term" dated 31.08.2011 published in the New Delhi edition of the Times of India‟ newspaper. The CPIO refrained from answering 3 queries pertaining to the objection of Smt. Sushma Swaraj to such appointment on grounds that the applicant had not sought any information as defined in section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that communications and consultation by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha with the functionaries of the House such as the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha in discharge of 'constitutional duties' may cause breach of parliamentary privilege due to which such information under section 8(1)(c ) of the RTI. In response to the other questions, a copy of the letter addressed by the Leader of the Opposition to the Speaker as well as file notings connected with the extension of the Secretary General's tenure were furnished to the petitioner. The order was challenged in an appeal before the FAA i.e. the Joint Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat who dismissed such appeal. Thereafter, a second appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the CIC which directed that information sought be placed before the Speaker of Lok Sabha and in case the Secretariat claims privilege, it would clearly state the privileges as per Article 105 of the Constitution. Pursuant to such order, the Secretariat, on behalf of the Speaker, denied such information on the grounds of the exemption of 'parliamentary privilege' under section 8(1) (c ) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the instant case before the High Court, the CIC order along with the order of the Secretariat was challenged. While deciding the case, the Court considered the following issues: "(i) Does „parliamentary privilege‟ as understood within the meaning of Article 105(3) of the Constitution of India apply to Queries Nos. 3, 8 and 9; (ii) Does the inter se communication and consultation between the Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the House and the Speaker form part of „proceedings in Parliament‟ in relation to which parliamentary privilege may be claimed; (iii) What are the boundaries and contours of the right to receive information under the RTI Act vis-a-vis a claim of parliamentary privilege; (iv) Under the RTI Act who is the arbiter of whether a claim of 'parliamentary privilege' is tenable in relation to a given subject matter in the context of an RTI query; and (v) Does the direction contained in CIC‟s order dated 20.02.2013, whereby it has been left to the Speaker to decide if „parliamentary privilege‟ is to be claimed in relation to the information sought, amount to abdication by the CIC of its role under the RTI Act ; or, putting it alternatively, does it amount to the CIC delegating its power under the RTI Act to the Speaker." The Court while considering the issue of parliamentary privilege under Article 104 and 105, observed, that by virtue of Section 15 of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, since so far no law has been enacted by the Parliament to define its powers, privileges and immunities, these remain the same as of the House of Commons of the U.K Parliament where the position as decided by the U.K Supreme Court is that the areas where such privilege is sought must be so closely connected with the proceedings of the Parliament that intervention of the court would be inconsistent with the Parliament's sovereignty. Referring to a number of cases, the Court observed that Supreme Court on numerous cases had held that parliamentary privilege is to be exercised to safeguard the integrity of the legislative function against obstructions caused and breach of such privilege would arise if an act is directly connected with or bears proximity to the functions of a member as a legislator. Moreover, boundaries of parliamentary privilege had to be confined to activities of parliamentarians or activities in parliament that would justify the degree of immunity. The Court held that while freedom of speech was...

"Communication And Consultation Between Speaker Of Lok Sabha And Leader Of Opposition On Extension Of Tenure Of Secretary General Not Covered By Section 8(1)(c)Of The RTI": Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Shreyasi Bhattacharya

Tags