TIOL-DDT 425 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>Taxindiaonline's DDT 402</title>
</head>
<body >
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT
425</font><br>
10 08 2006<br>
Thursday</b></font></p>
<p align=center ><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Arun
Jaitley before Central Information Commission- adds to the credence of the RTI
Act.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The
CIC observed,</strong> “In a parliamentary system of our democratic governance,
a Member of Parliament enjoys considerable freedom to seek relevant information
on the floor of the Parliament, which an ordinary citizen may envy. The fact
that the appellant, a Member of Parliament (RS) and a former Minister has sought
access to the public records surely adds to the credence of the successful implementation
of RTI Act. The exercise of right to seek information and participation by the
distinguished members of society, like MPs and ex-Ministers, as information
seekers, are indeed a happy augury for strengthening the information regime
that has now been set up for ensuring free flow of information, which even the
common man may use to his advantage.” </font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The issue
before the CIC was an appeal filed by Jaitley against the Central Bureau of
Investigation. He had asked the CBI for information on </strong></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 1. files pertaining
to the freezing of Bank Account Nos.5A5151516M and A5151516L maintained at
London by Mr and Mrs. Ottavio Quattrocchi</font></p>
<p align="justify"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2.
correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom
and the CBI</font></p>
<p align="justify"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.
information pertaining to the visit of Mr B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General
of India and other persons accompanying him, to London in December, 2005 in
connection with the de-freezing of the said Bank Accounts.</font></p>
<p align="justify"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4.
opinion rendered by Mr. K.P. Pathak, Additional Solicitor General of India
on the said issue and the records pertaining to the seeking of the said opinion.</font></p>
<p align="justify"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5.
All advices, opinions and notings of officials based on which a decision was
taken not to challenge the judgment of Justice J.D. Kapoor dated 4.2.2004</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
you have guessed correctly, the CBI refused to part with the information. The
Commission observed,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
CBI has been investigating the case for nearly sixteen years without much success.
Though the CBI has claimed exemptions from disclosure of information on valid
grounds, as mentioned above, these exemptions would not be available after the
expiry of twenty years of such public actions under the provisions of the Act.
The CBI is, therefore, directed to expedite the investigations in the matter
lest its credibility should get unduly tarnished.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And
CBI’s refusal to part with the information was upheld.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(<a href="http://www.hrindiaonline.com/laws4u/rti1.php?filename=rti/2006/2006-HRIOL-94-CIC.htm">Arun
Jaitley v Central Bureau of Investigation in Decision No.157/IC(A)/2006</a>)</font></p>
<p align=center ><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Is
the President a Public Authority?</strong></font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Will Official
Secrets Act over ride RTI Act?</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
CIC recently considered a very interesting case. The applicant had asked for
the correspondence between the former President Late Shri K.R. Narayanan and
the former Prime Minister Shri A.B. Vajpayee between the period from 28.2.02
and 15.3.02.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
matter was referred to the full bench which heard the appellant through video
conference.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Role
of President of India as seen by the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh Vs. State
of Punjab</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"President
of Indiais not at all a glorified cipher. He represents the majority of the
State, is at the Apex, though only symbolically, and has rapport with the people
and parties, being above politics. His vigilant presence makes for good government,
if only he uses, what Bagehot described as the "Right to be consulted to
warn and encourage". Indeed Article 78 wisely used, keeps the President
in close touch with the Prime Minister of matters of national importance and
policy significance and there is no doubt that the imprint of his personality
may chasten and correct the political government."</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">During the course
of hearing, on a query from the Commission, the Addl. Solicitor General conceded
that the President is also a Public Authority as any other Public Authority.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Counsel
argued that Article 361 cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the President
is not even answerable to the people. Definitely, the President is not beyond
public scrutiny even though, he may not be answerable to the Courts. Presidential
privilege cannot override his rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), since
Right to Information is a mechanism to avail those rights which cannot be denied.
In participatory governance, <b>Government cannot seek any privilege against
its citizens</b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
Commission considered the following questions</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
1. Whether the Public Authority’s claim of privilege under the Law of Evidence
is justifiable under the RTI Act, 2005?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
2. Whether the CPIO or Public Authority can claim immunity from disclosure
under Article 74(2) of the Constitution?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
3. Whether the denial of information to the appellant can be justified in
this case under Section 8 (1) (a) or under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
4. Whether there is any infirmity in the order passed by the CPIO or by the
Appellate Authority denying the requested information to the Appellant?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the Commissio</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">n
held</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
1. No public authority can claim to deny any information on the ground that
it happens to be a “privileged” one under the Indian Evidence Act. Section
3 of the Right to Information Act confers a right on all citizens to obtain
information and it casts an obligation on all public authorities to provide
the information so demanded. The right thus conferred is only subject to the
other provisions of the Act and to no other law.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
2. the CPIO cannot deny information sought under the Right to Information
Act by taking recourse to either the Law of Evidence or Article 74(2), of
the Constitution of India.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
3. This, however, does not mean that the disclosure can be claimed as a matter
of right in respect of all types/categories of information/ correspondence.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
4. the only relevant ground for denial could be that the disclosure could
prejudicially affect the security of the nation and not on other grounds like
the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State etc. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Finally
the Commission decided to see the correspondence and then decide the issue.
The government was asked to produce the correspondence on 22<sup>nd</sup> August
2006.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(<a href="http://www.hrindiaonline.com/laws4u/rti1.php?filename=rti/2006/2006-HRIOL-93-CIC.htm">C.
Ramesh v Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievancesand Pensions.</a>)</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<p align=center ><font color="#006600" size="2"><b>Customs and Excise Revenue up and of course
Service Tax too</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2">There is an 18.6% growth in Customs and excise
revenue up to July 2006, with 35.2% in customs and 7.8% in excise while there
is a 63.4% growth in Service Tax. In spite of this good news, the department
has already started Revenue drive and monitoring, which means persuading the
assessees to pay from PLA only.</font></p>
<p align=center ><font size="2"><b><font color="#006600">China’s Trade Surplus
is 14.61 billion dollars</font></b></font></p>
</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">With all those
Chinese goods all over the world, China's Ju</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ly
trade surplus hit a record 14.61 bln usd, according to the General Administration
of Customs.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In
July exports were up 22.6 pct to 80.34 bln usd and impo</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">rts
rose 19.7 pct year-on-year to 65.72 bln usd, the customs office said. In the
first seven months of the year the trade surplus was 75.95 bln usd, compared
to 49.97 bln usd in the previous year.</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2">Until Tomorrow with more DDT </font></p>
<p ><font color="#FF6666" size="2">Have a nice day. </font></p>
<p ><font color="#FF6666" size="2">Mail your comments to</font><font size="2">
<a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></font></p>
</font>
</body>
</html>