Supreme Court upholds CIC’s power to frame Regulations pertaining to constitution of Benches, as such powers are within the RTI Act

Supreme Court: In a civil appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 framed by the Chief Information Commissioner (‘CIC’) and held that the CIC has no power to constitute Benches of the Commission, the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. has set aside the impugned Judgment and upheld the CIC’s powers to frame Regulations pertaining to constitution of Benches of the Commission as such powers are within the ambit of Section 12(4) of the RTI Act.

Issue: Whether the CIC, under the provisions of Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, has the authority to constitute benches of the CIC and frame Regulations for the effective management and allocation of work within the Commission, including the issuance of orders and the formation of committees?

Analysis and Decision:

The Court remarked that autonomy and independence of administrative bodies are fundamental to their ability to perform their designated functions effectively. These institutions are established to carry out specialized tasks that require a level of impartiality and expertise, which can only be achieved if they are free from undue interference. Interfering in the functioning of these bodies can be detrimental, as it undermines their ability to operate efficiently and impartially.

The Court took note of the relevant provisions of the RTI Act and noted that Section 12(4) of the RTI Act grants CIC the general superintendence, direction, and management of the Commission’s affairs. This provision implies that the CIC has comprehensive authority to oversee and direct the functioning. This Section allows the CIC to implement measures that ensure smooth and efficient functioning of the Commission, including the formation of benches of the Commission, including making decisions necessary for its effective operation.

The Court said that the High Court’s interpretation was based on a restrictive reading of the RTI Act, focusing on the absence of explicit provisions for benches within the RTI Act. A broader interpretation of the RTI Act is warranted. The general superintendence, direction, and management powers vested in the CIC imply a wide- ranging authority to organize the internal functioning of the Commission, including the ability to constitute benches. This interpretation aligns with the purpose and objective of the RTI Act, which aims to facilitate the efficient disposal of cases and the effective implementation of the right to information.

The Court clarified that the absence of an explicit provision for Benches does not negate the CIC’s authority to constitute them, as such powers are implicitly included within the scope of the CIC’s general superintendence and management responsibilities. The broad language of the RTI Act indicates an intention to grant the CIC comprehensive authority to ensure the effective and efficient functioning of the Commission.

The Court remarked that the High Court’s narrow reading of the provisions overlooked the inherent powers of the CIC to manage the affairs of the Commission. The RTI Act’s broad language suggests that the legislative intent was to provide the CIC with the necessary authority to implement measures that ensure the Commission’s effective operation.

The Court said that to achieve the objectives of the RTI Act, it is essential that the CIC operates efficiently and without undue procedural constraints. The principle of purposive interpretation supports the view that the CIC’s powers under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act include all necessary measures to manage and direct the Commission’s affairs effectively. This includes the ability to form benches to handle the increasing volume of cases, as the formation of Benches allows for the efficient allocation of work and ensures the timely disposal of cases, which is crucial for upholding the right to information.

The Court further said that the High Court’s reliance on the absence of explicit provisions for Benches, overlooks the broad language of Sections 12(4) and 15(4) of the RTI Act, which grants the CIC and State Chief Information Commissioners wide-ranging powers to manage their respective Commissions’ affairs.

Therefore, the Court said that the use of the words “superintendence, direction and management” in Sections 12(4) and 15(4) of the RTI Act clearly provides the CIC an ambit of power wide enough to frame its own Regulations and to delegate its power to a committee formed by it. The CIC, utilizing these broad powers, has enacted ‘The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007.’ While the RTI Act does not explicitly grant CIC the authority to frame Regulations, the overarching powers granted under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act inherently include the ability to manage the Commission’s affairs effectively.

The Court after a purposive interpretation of Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, said that the powers of “superintendence, direction and management” are intended to be comprehensive, enabling the CIC to adopt measures, including the framing of Regulations, that ensure transparency, accountability, and efficient handling of its responsibilities. Thus, the creation of these Regulations is not only justified but crucial for the CIC to manage its workload and operational demands effectively, thereby serving the core objectives of the RTI Act.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned Judgment and upheld the CIC’s powers to frame Regulations pertaining to constitution of Benches of the Commission as such powers are within the ambit of Section 12(4) of the RTI Act.