Communication between the Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha and the Speaker
4 Mar, 2013Background
Two separate appeals were taken up together by a full bench of the CIC.
In the first appeal, the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat (LSS) seeking information related to the appointment and the grant of a year’s extension to the incumbent Lok Sabha Secretary General. He wanted the letters written; file notings, documents, etc., the rules for granting extension, the registration of opposition by the Leader of the Opposition, the particulars of the officers in the eligibility zone and the rules applicable for speaking in the zero-hour of the Lok Sabha. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. He denied the information related to correspondence on action taken on the letter from the Leader of Opposition to the Speaker concerning further extension of the tenure of the Lok Sabha Secretary General, stating that the communication and consultation by the Speaker with the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition is in discharge of constitutional duties, the disclosure of which may cause breach of parliamentary privilege and hence was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; of the RTI Act, 2005.
In the second appeal, disclosure of the complete correspondence between the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Prime Minister during the last 3 years was sought.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to its earlier decisions in appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00518 dated 22/3/2007 and appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01330 dated 29/7/2008. It was held in the decision that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction and would not choose to pass a verdict as to whether disclosure will actually amount to either breach of privilege or contempt of the Parliament because it is for the Parliament to decide and determine that. The Commission can only see and examine whether the concerned Public Authority denying the information has a prime facie apprehension as to whether disclosure of information in the given case may amount to commission of contempt or breach of privilege and if a prime facie case is so made out, the Commission has to uphold the same. The Commission ruled that the Speaker will be the authority to determine the question of privileges. The CIC directed that regarding disclosure in respect of the manner of disposal of the letter written by the Leader of the Opposition to the Speaker and the recording of objections, the relevant file should be placed before the Speaker of the Lok Sabha for instructions. Thereafter, if the Secretariat claims privilege it will clearly state the privileges claimed as per Article 105 of the Constitution of India.
Regarding the disclosure of the complete correspondence between the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Prime Minister during the last 3 years, the Commission held that deciding the applicability or otherwise of the parliamentary privileges on each and every document would require due diligence and would be a time consuming and complex process. This would disproportionately divert the resources of the Secretariat and would accordingly attract the provisions of Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the contention that drawing a parallel between the correspondence made available by the ‘Election Commission of India’ or the ‘National Advisory Council’ and the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Speaker is not appropriate, since there is a specific provision in the form of section 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; of the RTI Act regarding breach of privilege of the Parliament or State Legislature. The CIC ruled that the appellant should quote either the subject matter of correspondence or date of correspondence for seeking information instead an omnibus phrase like ‘last 3 years’ which would attract Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act. The CIC further added that the applicant can inspect the correspondence which does not attract section 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; of the Act and directed the PIO to provide the appellant identifies specific set of documents if the appellant identifies specific set of documents in terms of these indicative parameters.
Citation: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. The Lok Sabha Secretariat in File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000026 & CIC/SM/A/2012/000027
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1090
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission