Submitted by: Divya Sharma (35)

Ba llb Energy Laws Batch 1

Right To Information Test 2

Q. 1 Explain the entire procedure of an appeal under RTI act?

First Appeals: The applicant has a right to First Appeal under the RTI Act in case he does not get
the information, asked for, or is not satisfied with the information provided to him. Such appeals
shall be examined/processed in the Information Cell [Annexure XIV]. The comments/opinion of
the Division/Branches/deemed CPIO/s, whose assistance were sought at the application stage
under Section 5(4) and 5 (5) of the Act, shall also be obtained [Annexure XV] if the subject-
matter of appeal pertains to them. The Dealing Assistant in Information Cell who had processed
the particular original application, shall also, process the Appeal against the decision of the CPIO
in respect of the reply (ies) to that particular application(s) until and unless decided otherwise by
the head of the Information Cell, in which case he may assign the work to any other Dealing
Assitant. The Appellate Authority, who is a quasijudicial authority, shall take appropriate
decision and pass a speaking order, on the basis of relevant informtaion as obtained from the file
and personal hearing of the CPIO, Officers of the Branches/Divisions concerned and the
Appellant, in the format as per Annexure XVI within the prescribed time-schedule under Section
19 (1) and (6) of the Act. The process of disposing of appeal.

Second Appeal: The Information Cell shall also process cases that come up before the Central
Information Commission (CIC) in the second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act. All second
appeals shall be attended to by the CPIO/Information Cell and a responsible Officer of the
Division/Branch from whom assistance were sought under 5 (4) and 5(5) of the Act who would
be the deemed CPIO for that particular application/First appeal, as per instructions contained in
the notice of hearing received from the CIC. This shall be followed up by compliance of the
decisions/orders of the CIC by the respective officers/Branches/deemed CPIO /the Public
Authority i.e. the Divisional Head of the Branch concerned of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

Appeal in relation to Third Party Information: Third party in relation to the Act means a person
other that the citizen who has made request for information. Any public authority other than the
public authority to whom the request has been made shall also be included in the definition of
third party.

Time Limit for Filing of First appeal: The first appeal may be made within 30 days from the
date of expiry of the prescribed period or from the receipt of communication from the CPIO. If
the First Appellate Authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause
from filing the appeal, the appeal may be admitted after 30 days also.

Disposal of Appeal: Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function. It is,
therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see to it that the justice is not only done
but is should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate
authority should be a speaking order given justification for the decision arrived at.

Time Limit for Disposal of Appeal: The appeal should be disposed off within 30 days of receipt
of the appeal. In exception cases, the Appellate Authority may take 45 days for its disposal.
However, in cases where disposal of appeal takes more than 30 days, the Appellate Authority
should record in writing the reasons for such delay. If an appellate authority comes to a
conclusion that the appellant should be supplied information in addition to what has been
supplied to him by the CPIO, he may either (i) pass an order directing the CPIO to give such
information to the appellant; or (ii) he himself may give information to the appellant while
disposing off the appeal. In the first case the appellate authority should ensure that the
information ordered by him to be supplied is supplied to the appellant immediately. It would,
however, be better if the appellate authority chooses the second course of action and he himself
furnishes the information alongwith the order passed by him in the matter. If, in any case, the
CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority
feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should
bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take action
against the CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure
implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act.

 Schematic Diagram for disposal of First Appeal by the Appellate Authority Annexure
XVII (Refer to para 4.1)
Appeal received by the receiving clerk

Appeal reaches the Dealing Assistant

Dealing Assistant put up appeal for perusal of it by the Appellate Authority besides forwarding it
to the Division concerned

Information/comment received from division concerned

File put up on the basis of reply/comment made by the Division concerned

Appellate Authority considers the relevant informtaion contained in the file and the oral
submission made by the CPIO, Officers of the Branches/Division concerned and the Appellant.

Approval of Appellate Authority

Appeal disposed of./ Orders of the Appellate Authority

Order of the Appellate Authority is conveyed to appellant and CPIO for compliance.
Q.2 Explain the procedure of removal of Information Commissioner?

The pivotal organization which controls and monitors all authorities created under the Act to
make service of supplying information to the citizens is the Central Information Commission at
the Union level and the State Information Commission at the State level. The Central
Information Commission shall consist of Chief Information Commissioner and such other
Information Commissioners not exceeding ten in number.(sec 12(2)) The Commissioners to be
appointed shall be persons of eminence in diverse fields such as law, science and technology,
social service or management, mass media and administration and governance.(sec12(5)) These
items of professional eminence almost cover all fields of human activities. Yet, it is possible that
the one who is eminent in fields other than those specified may not be entitled to be considered
for appointment as Information Commissioner.

The procedure evolved in this section for removal of Chief Information Commissioner and other
Commissioners, speaks that the legislature firmly intended to give independent status to the
Information Commission. They can be removed from office only by an order of president that
too on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity. In this regard the President of India has
to refer the matter to Supreme Court of India for enquiry and basing on the report of the Supreme
Court, the President of India will take a decision1. Removal from posts here means, two things:
(1) removal which amounts to dismissal and (2) removal which amounts to termination of
service. The Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner can be removed
from his position on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after an enquiry is held and
report submitted by the Supreme Court on the reference made to it by President 2 . If the report of
the Supreme Court is adverse to the delinquent, the President shall remove the Chief Information
Commissioner or Information Commissioner forthwith. The President may terminate the services
of the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner. If the finds him (1) as
an adjudged insolvent. (2) as having been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; (3)
as engaged in any paid employment outside the service; (4) as unfit to hold office by reason of
any infirmity of mind or body; or (5) has acquired any financial or other interest which
prejudicially affects his/her function as Chief Information Commissioner or Information

1
Section 149(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
2
Section 14 (2)of RTI Act, 2005
Commissioner3. The distinction between dismissal from service and termination of service is
well known; in the former the person punished is not entitled to any re-appointment in
Government service, in the latter the person whose service is terminated may be considered for
re-appointment after disability is removed. Here, the objectionable behavior warranting removal
from service is either conditioned or restricted. The expression removal shall carry the same
meaning as it possesses in service jurisprudence. It is only in the circumstances where the Chief
Information Commissioner or the Information Commissioner is found to have acquired an
interest in the contract; he should be shown to have received money beyond what is normally due
as his genuine share. If not, his case should be treated as one pertaining to misbehavior only. The
President may suspend the Chief Information Commissioner or the Information Commissioner
during the pendency of any reference made by him to the Supreme Court. There is no question,
therefore, of the President suspending the Chief Information Commissioner or the Information
Commissioner before any reference is actually made. The safeguards in removing the Chief
Information Commissioner and other Commissioners empower the Commission to pursue their
duties without any fear or favour from executive. It acts as an independent organization like the
Election Commission. The People are observing how the Election Commission is working
asserting its rights vested under the Constitution.

Removal of State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners
Sections 15, 16 and 17 clearly provide autonomy to the State Information Commission. The
Information Commission can act independently without any influence from the other organs of
the State. The intention of the legislature is that the State Information Commission has to act as
an independent organization. A cumbersome procedure is prescribed for the removal that too on
proved misbehavior based on the report of the Supreme Court. They are being treated at par with
Election Commission. Here also the governor has to refer the matter to the Supreme Court and
on the report submitted by the Supreme Court; the Governor has to take action under the section.
The conjoint reading of sections 15, 16 and 17, speaks clear that the legislature intended that the
Information Commission should act as an independent organization in achieving the objectives
outlined in the Preamble. The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information
Commissioners are high officers. They are statutorily appointed under the provisions of this Act
directly by the Governor and they are accordingly free from the control of the Executive.
3
Section 14 (3)of RTI Act, 2005
Therefore, their suspension and removal can’t be affected through normal processes applicable to
other employees of the Government. If they are to be removed on account of any misbehavior or
incapacity, there shall be an enquiry conducted against them by a Supreme Court Judge and it is
on the report submitted to the Governor if it is unfavorable to them the Governor shall remove
them. In case, if it is proposed to terminate the services other than by removal for proved
incapacity or misbehavior it can be done by the Governor, if it is proved to his satisfaction that
the delinquent is adjudged as an insolvent or was convicted for an offence which involves moral
turpitude, or is found to have been engaging in any paid employment other than his office or is
found to be infirm in mind or has acquired financial interest in any business, trade or avocation
which is likely to affect prejudicially his function as State Chief Information Commissioner/State
Information Commissioner. The Governor may suspend them during the period when any
enquiry against them is under progress with the Judge of the Supreme Court on charges of
incapacity or misbehavior. The legal consequences of removal for misconduct and termination of
service on other grounds are different. Though the word used here is removal, it amounts in law
to a dismissal for misconduct. Hence, by removal of the concerned Commissioner he is deprived
of all chances of re-appointment in Government but by termination he may be considered for re-
appointment after the disability, for which his service was terminated, is removed. Such
clearance of disability does not result in restoration of his post.