Rs 5K a month won't give luxury in cities like Delhi: Court
Court defers verdict on Shramjeevi Express train blast accused
U'khnd HC judge feels uneasy during court hours, rushed to
Delhi police faces court's ire for failing to file CFSL report
Court asks Delhi Police to lodge FIR against Videocon CMD
Central Information Commission (CIC) does not have the power to direct Tihar Jail to develop a system of compensating inmates who have been incarcerated beyond their period of sentence, Delhi High Court has held.
"Prima facie, this power does not vest in the CIC," Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said while staying operation of the September 29, 2016 decision of the Commission asking Tihar Jail authorities to frame a policy to resolve disputes regarding remission and paying compensation to prisoners who lost their personal liberty due to detention beyond the sentence awarded to them.
The court's order came on a plea by jail authorities who contended that the transparency panel has exceeded its jurisdiction under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and appeared to have exercised the powers of a court.
CIC's decision had come on a plea by RTI applicant Om Prakash Gandhi who had claimed that he had spent four days more in Tihar Jail than what was ordered by the court.
The commission had directed that Gandhi should be paid a token compensation by the prison authorities at the rate of Rs 2500 per day along with an additional Rs 1000 for costs borne by him.
"Perusal of the order, prima facie, shows that the CIC has sought to exercise powers beyond those conferred on it under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The CIC, by the impugned order, had assessed compensation calculated per day of the alleged extra detention of the respondent and directed the petitioner to frame a policy or guideline or regulations for a system of resolving disputes regarding remission and payment of compensation to prisoners whose release is delayed on account of certain reasons.
It also issued notice to Gandhi and sought his response by May 1, the next date of hearing.
The court, however, clarified that "the pendency of the present petition and the order will not come in the way of respondent No.1 (Gandhi) seeking appropriate remedies in law before an appropriate forum".
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Subscribe to Business Standard Premium
Exclusive Stories, Curated Newsletters, 26 years of Archives, E-paper, and more!
Insightful news, sharp views, newsletters, e-paper, and more! Unlock incisive commentary only on Business Standard.
Download the Business Standard App for latest Business News and Market News .
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU