'CIC order on avoiding penalty on pol parties contrary to law'

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Mar 18 2015 | 10:42 PM IST
RTI activist Subhash Agrawal today alleged that the order issued by the Central Information Commission expressing helplessness in penalising political parties is "contrary to law" as notices were issued an year before complaint was registered in the Commission.
CIC has expressed helplessness in imposing any penalty on six national parties, declared to be under the ambit of the RTI Act by it, saying in the absence of any CPIO appointed by the political parties, as directed by transparency panel, it cannot impose any penalty.
In letter sent today to all the Information Commissioner, Agrawal has said that complaint-petition number CIC/CC/C/2015/000182 was registered before uploading of the said verdict on March 16, 2015 at CIC-website.
"But first notice of hearing on the matter on basis of one of my three petitions against non-compliance of full-bench CIC-verdict dated June 03, 2013 in petition-number CIC/SM/C/2011/001386 etc was issued long back on February 7, 2014 and hearings on the matter held on November 21, 2014 and January 07, 2015," he alleged.
The activist, on whose petition the order was given, said since the complaint-petition number CIC/CC/C/2015/000182 was registered at CIC on March 11, 2015, all proceedings in the matter including issue of notices and hearings held prior to this date are "contrary to law".
"I also request for a proper enquiry in the whole episode of registration of complaint after issue of notices and hearings held with accountability fixed on the concerned ones for the serious lapse.
"Inquiry may also be kindly made for not registering any complaint on my first such letter dated August 27, 2013 on non-compliance of full-bench CIC-verdict dated June 03, 2013 in petition-number CIC/SM/C/2011/001386 etc," he said in the letter.
He said the Commission is fully empowered to issue summons and has powers of civil court while deciding complaints under the RTI Act, but they chose not to exercise it.
"This decision will give a window to all the erring public authorities who may not appoint a CPIO to avoid penalty," Agrawal said.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Mar 18 2015 | 10:42 PM IST

Next Story