HC denies relief on plea to set time limit for information commissions
Madras high court
has denied relief to a man who sought a directive for the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, and the State Information Commission, Chennai, to dispose of appeals filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by setting a time limit.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed in 2020 by M Selvakumar. In addition to seeking a time limit, the petitioner requested an increase in the number of commissioners in both commissions. He further sought the establishment of a branch of the State Information Commission in Madurai for public convenience.
A division bench of justice S M Subramaniam and justice A D Maria Clete observed that the relief sought to direct the commissions, to dispose of appeals by setting a time limit could not be granted.
The commissions are created statutorily, and the workload is to be regulated by the commission itself.
The high court, in exercising its powers of judicial review, cannot direct the commission to dispose of appeals by setting a time limit, as it is impractical and would result in a futile exercise. The cases, which are to be decided on a priority basis or by seniority, are to be regulated by the commission. If any specific grievance exists, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the commission for the speedy disposal of the case, the judges observed, and disposed of the petition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
10 Years Of Probe, 7 In Trial, 17 For Verdict: A Timeline Of The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case
Last Updated: The trial, which started in 2018, got over on April 19, 2025, with the verdict set to be delivered today 17 years after the incident took place in September 2008 Seventeen years after a blast rocked Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon, an NIA court is likely to deliver its verdict in the highly polarising case – complete with its own set of twists and turns – on Thursday. Six persons were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008. The trial, which started in 2018, got over on April 19, 2025, and the case was reserved for judgement. The case was initially probed by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) before being transferred to the NIA in 2011. Seven accused, including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, faced trial in the case for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, and the Indian Penal Code. Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni are the other accused. 2008-2009: THE BIG TWIST The Maharashtra ATS, led by Hemant Karkare, takes over the investigation and, for the first time in India, it is alleged that the blast was carried out by individuals linked to Hindu right-wing groups. October 2008: Now a BJP leader, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Shrikant Purohit of the Indian Army are arrested. The two are alleged to have links to Abhinav Bharat, a Hindu right-wing group, and suspected of carrying out a 'revenge attack" on the Muslim community. November 2008: Evidence, including the motorcycle used in the blast allegedly owned by Thakur, is recovered. Chief investigator and special IGP Hemant Karkare is martyred in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. 2009-2011: THE POLITICS OF IT The ATS widens its net and makes more arrests, including other right-wing activists like Dayanand Pandey, Sameer Kulkarni, and Ajay Rahirkar. But there is massive political backlash as Hindutva outfits accuse the probe of being politically motivated. January 2009: The ATS files its first chargesheet naming 11 accused and three wanted persons, with Thakur and Lt Col Purohit as key conspirators. Charges include provisions of the UAPA, IPC, and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). July 31, 2009: MCOCA charges are dropped by a special court citing lack of evidence related to other cases against the accused. July 19, 2010: The Bombay High Court reinstates MCOCA charges. April 13, 2011: The case is transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 2016-2017: NIA ALLEGATIONS, KEY ACCUSED GRANTED BAIL In a significant development, the NIA drops MCOCA charges from its supplementary chargesheet and accuses the ATS of planting evidence and forced confessions. In 2017, the key accused in the case – Thakur and Lt Col Purohit – are granted bail. May 13, 2016: The NIA files a supplementary chargesheet, dropping MCOCA charges stating that the application of the law by the ATS is questionable. It alleges that the ATS planted evidence and used coercive tactics during questioning. April 25, 2017: The Bombay High Court grants bail to Thakur on health grounds. August 21, 2017: The Supreme Court grants bail to Lt Col Purohit after nine years in jail. December 27, 2017: MCOCA charges are dropped but a special court refuses to discharge Thakur and six other accused, ordering them to face trial under the UAPA, IPC, and the Explosive Substances Act. 2018 TO PRESENT: TRIAL & VERDICT The trial in the case began 10 years after the tragic incident with the verdict now set to be delivered 17 years later. October 30, 2018: Charges are framed against seven accused, including Thakur and Lt Col Purohit. December 2018: Trial formally begins. September 2023: Prosecution closes its evidence, having examined 323 witnesses with 37 turning hostile. April 19, 2025: Final arguments conclude, and the court reserves its judgment. July 31, 2025: Verdict awaited. About the Author News Desk The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : 2008 Malegaon Blast view comments Location : Mumbai, India, India First Published: July 31, 2025, 01:48 IST News india 10 Years Of Probe, 7 In Trial, 17 For Verdict: A Timeline Of The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
AAP moves SC against UP govt move to merge schools with low enrolment
Lucknow: The Aam Aadmi Party has taken its fight against the merger of schools with low enrolment in Uttar Pradesh to the Supreme Court. Party MP and UP in-charge Sanjay Singh filed a petition in the SC, challenging the UP govt's order issued on June 16, to close some primary schools and merge them with other schools within a 3 km radius. Singh called the govt's decision "arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against children's right to education," alleging that it violates not only Article 21A of the Constitution but also the spirit of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. An AAP functionary in UP said that the party highlighted the danger of closing primary schools, forcing children aged 6 to 14 years to travel 3 to 4 km through difficult and dangerous routes, including forests, railway tracks, highways, and other risky paths, which is not only impractical but could be life-threatening for children. In the petition, Singh said that as per the RTE Act, there has to be a primary school within a 1 km radius for every settlement with a population of 300. He added that before issuing this order, the govt did not consult school management committees nor seek approval from the legislative assembly. Moreover, he said, it is being implemented in the middle of the academic session, causing significant inconvenience to thousands of students and parents. Singh also argued that the order will have the worst impact on girls, children from marginalised communities, differently-abled children, and families living in remote areas.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Amend biased laws against leprosy patients, SC tells States
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) called upon the States to summon special one-day Assembly sessions or enact an ordinance to amend discriminatory, derogatory and demeaning provisions in various laws against leprosy-affected persons. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Centre and States will do great service to these people by removing discriminatory and demeaning provisions of law. 'States can call upon a special Assembly session or a one-day session instead of waiting for a regular monsoon session or winter session and remove or amend the discriminatory provisions against leprosy-affected persons. Where it is not possible to call for a session, an ordinance can be enacted. The State government will be doing great service to them,' the Bench said. The top court was dealing with a batch of petitions, including one initiated in 2010 in which the Bench had earlier directed the States to form a committee to identify provisions in various laws that discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons, and take steps for their removal so that they conform to constitutional obligations. Earlier, the court had said it was informed that there might be more than 145 State legislations where such objectionable provisions were still subsisting. The apex court on Wednesday urged the States to take remedial action and said, 'It has been brought to our notice, now let's take remedial action. It is not the court's job but the State government's to do it.' The Bench asked the States, which have not filed the status report, to do so by October and said the National Human Rights Commission, which is also dealing with the issue, may submit a report with due permission from the Chairperson. Additional advocate general Garima Prashad informed the Bench that the Uttar Pradesh government has identified three laws which need to be 'corrected'. Similarly, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan government lawyers submitted that they have filed their status reports and identified a couple of laws and necessary actions have been taken. 'The most serious of all... we don't want to use the word but see how embarrassing it is. Leprosy was one of the grounds for taking divorce,' Justice Kant told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. The top court sought a response from the Centre and its status report on the issue. On May 7, the top court noted that these provisions are of wide range illustratively from prohibition against holding elected offices to leprosy being a ground of divorce before the family laws came to be amended by the Parliament, during pendency of these proceedings, through the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from February 21, 2019. The court said it is not sure as to how many States have taken it seriously and earnestly and have taken any effective step to remove the offending and discriminatory expressions from their State laws so as to bring them in conformity with the Constitution. The petitioners, including the Federation of Leprosy Organisation (FOLO) and legal think-tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, have contended that over a hundred provisions existed, both in Central and in State laws which discriminated against persons affected by leprosy in ways that caused stigmatisation and indignity to them.
