CIC Has Power To Delegate Its Inquiry Responsibility Under RTI Act To A Committee Formed By It: SC Upholds CIC (Management) Regulations

The Supreme Court held that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has an ambit of power wide enough to frame its own Regulations and to delegate its power to a Committee formed by it.

The Court held thus in an appeal challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court by which it quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 framed by CIC and held that the CIC has no power to constitute Benches of the Commission.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “… 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 Central Information Commission, 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 Bench elucidated that under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, the CIC has the authority to issue various forms of administrative guidelines, directives, and instructions essential for the effective management of its affairs.

Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani appeared for the appellant while AOR Nitin Mishra and Advocate Sarbajit Roy appeared for the respondents.

Brief Facts -

The appeal preferred by CIC was confined to the issue of validity of the Regulations and the powers of CIC under Section 12(4) of RTI Act. The case originated from an application filed by a person (applicant) under Section 18 read with Section 19 of RTI Act, seeking information concerning the ongoing modification of the Master Plan of Delhi for the year 2021. The applicant also sought directions to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to fulfil its obligations under Section 4 of RTI Act, which mandates proactive disclosure of information by public authorities.

Thereafter, CIC issued an order directing the constitution of a Committee to inquire into the matter of compliance with Section 4 RTI Act by DDA and to submit a report to the Commission. Being aggrieved by this, DDA filed a writ petition before the High Court and it declared the Regulations framed by CIC as ultra vires. It held that CIC’s authority is confined to the provisions explicitly stated in RTI Act which do not include the power to delegate its inquiry responsibilities to a Committee. It further found that CIC exceeded its jurisdiction and such powers are reserved for a judicial authority. Challenging such decision of the High Court, CIC was before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “These Regulations are essential tools for ensuring the efficient administration and operation of the Commission, addressing various procedural and managerial aspects necessary for fulfilling its mandate. Focusing narrowly on the nomenclature and the absence of an explicit provision for Regulation-making within the RTI Act would undermine the broader purpose and intent of the same. The nomenclature used to describe these Regulations should not detract from their necessity and their role in facilitating the Commission’s functioning.”

The Court added that 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.

“The 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. Ensuring their independence is essential for maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the administrative system. Interfering in the functioning of these bodies can be detrimental, as it undermines their ability to operate efficiently and impartially. Such interference can stem from restrictive interpretations of their powers or direct interventions that impede their operational autonomy”, it remarked.

The Court further remarked that the administrative bodies must have the freedom to establish and implement internal procedures and regulations that best suit their unique mandates and operational needs and the principle of non-interference is not merely an administrative convenience but a cornerstone for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that these bodies can serve the public interest effectively.

“When these institutions are allowed to function without external pressures, they can make decisions based on expertise and objective criteria, which enhances their credibility and public trust”, it said.

The Court also noted that the use of the term "Regulations" should not detract from their function, which is akin to any other administrative orders or circulars that an authority like the CIC might promulgate to ensure the smooth operation of its duties.

“The essence of these regulations lies in their role in facilitating the internal management and procedural operations of the Commission, a necessity clearly envisioned by the broad powers of superintendence, direction, and management granted under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act. By focusing on the terminology, the objections fail to appreciate the functional equivalence of these regulations to other forms of administrative guidance. The regulations were crafted to address the practical needs of the Commission, providing structure and clarity to its operations, in any administrative context. Therefore, raising objections based solely on the label "Regulations" is an exercise in semantics rather than a substantive argument”, it enunciated.

The Court emphasised that the autonomy of the Central Information Commission is of paramount importance to its effective functioning and any undue interference in its administrative functions, such as the power to constitute benches, would significantly impede its ability to handle the large volume of cases efficiently and expeditiously.

“The CIC must be allowed to operate independently and exercise its powers of superintendence, direction, and management without external constraints. … . Allowing the Commission to function autonomously ensures that it can fulfil its role in promoting transparency and accountability, which are the cornerstones of the RTI Act. The ability to form benches and allocate work among Information Commissioners is essential for the CIC to manage its workload effectively and uphold the citizens' right to information”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and upheld the CIC’s powers to frame Regulations pertaining to constitution of Benches of the Commission.

Cause Title- Central Information Commission v. D.D.A. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 513)

Appearance:

Appellant: AGI R. Venkataramani and AOR Shreekant Neelappa Terdal.

Respondents: AOR Nitin Mishra, Advocates Sarbajit Roy, Ishaan Sharma, and Mitali Gupta.

Click here to read/download the Judgment