CIC appointed prior to RTI Act amendment of 2019 entitled to pensionary benefits equivalent to that of retired Supreme Court judge, rules Kerala high court
chief information commissioner
(SCIC)
Vinson M Paul
, pension benefits equivalent to those of a retired Supreme Court judge or Election Commissioner.The order was issued by a bench of Justice Harishankar V Menon on a petition filed by Paul challenging the state's decision denying him pensionary benefits on par with a retired Supreme Court judge or an Election Commissioner.
The bench also quashed the communication issued by general administration department principal secretary and the govt order dated May 29, 2014, which had fixed the service and pension benefits for state information commissioners.Paul, a retired IPS officer who was appointed as SCIC in 2016 and demitted office in 2020 upon attaining the age of 65 years, claimed pensionary benefits in accordance with Section 16 of the
Right to Information Act
, 2005.
He contended that these benefits should be equivalent to those of a retired Supreme Court judge or an Election Commissioner. The govt responded that it was not in a position to consider his claim, stating that he was only entitled to the benefits specified in the 2014 govt order. It also pointed out that the RTI Act was amended in 2019, and as per the amendment, the salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the state chief information commissioner and state information commissioners shall be prescribed by the central govt.Upon reviewing the records, the single bench observed that although the RTI Act was amended in 2019, it explicitly stated that appointments made before the amendment would not be affected.
HC further held that the 2014 govt order relating to the service and benefits of state information commissioners must be set aside, as it seeks to depart from the statutory provisions. The court emphasised that no govt order, notification, or circular can substitute statutory rules framed under the authority of law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
State will be at whim of Governors if bills held up: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong reservations over the Union government's interpretation of the governor's powers under the Constitution, observing that if a governor could permanently withhold assent to bills passed by an elected state legislature, it would effectively leave the state government at the 'whims and fancies' of a nominated office-bearer. Tushar Mehta insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances' The remarks came on the second day of hearings before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, on a presidential reference under Article 143. The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling that had, for the first time, prescribed timelines for governors and the President to decide on bills pending before them. At the heart of Wednesday's arguments was the Centre's reading of the word 'withhold' in Article 200, which solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued empowers a governor to reject a bill outright, leaving it to 'fall through' without the option of being sent back to the legislature. Article 200 entails options for the governor to either grant assent to a bill passed by the state legislature, 'withhold' assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's approval 'This power has to be exercised sparingly and rarely, but this power is there with him,' submitted Mehta, adding that to deny such authority would reduce the governor to 'a mere post office'. The bench, however, pushed back. 'If he does not send the bill again, he can still withhold a bill for time immemorial,' the court pointed out, citing instances such as Tamil Nadu where bills re-enacted by the assembly had remained in limbo without any declaration from the governor. 'Will we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in appeal over the decisions of an elected government? Then, a government elected with majority will be at the whims and fancy of the governor,' it added. The bench also underscored that constitutional interpretation cannot remain 'frozen in time' and must be informed by experience. 'When the laws were made originally, ideal situations were contemplated…But interpretation is a process and it takes into account how these constitutional functionaries are working today.' The bench cited the example of the anti-defection law under the 10th Schedule, where the speaker was originally seen as the best adjudicator, but decades of litigation had forced courts to re-examine that assumption. 'The validity of a constitutional vision comes by its performance and experience,'said the bench, adding that the absence of legislative impact assessments during framing had left provisions such as Article 200 vulnerable to 'complications and disputes'. Mehta, however, insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances', including on matters implicating national security or where a bill may violate fundamental rights. 'His oath of defending the Constitution will require him to exercise this power in the rarest of rare cases,' he said, while cautioning the court against turning the governor into a ceremonial figure. The bench repeatedly pressed the solicitor general on whether the power to 'withhold' could be read as an indefinite veto, pointing out that the proviso to Article 200 itself prohibits a governor from withholding assent once a bill has been re-passed by the assembly. 'If the meaning of withhold is to kill a bill, then how do we reconcile this with the proviso?' the court asked. During the daylong hearing, SG Mehta referred extensively to the Constituent Assembly debates to reinforce his point. The bench, however, posed a pointed question on whether governors in practice have lived up to the vision articulated by the framers of the Constitution, which emphasised harmony between the governor and the elected state government. 'The first part of this speech you are reading says there should be harmony between the governor and the elected government. The second part says that the provincial government would be consulted for the appointment of the governor. Is it done? Whether the expectations expressed during the Constituent Assembly debates have been really realised?' it said. At one point, the bench maintained that the governor must 'declare' or communicate his decision of withholding a bill to the state assembly, adding the central points of debate would be around the meaning of the term 'withhold' and the timeline. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the President when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. While making clear on Tuesday that it is only rendering an advisory opinion and not sitting in appeal over its April decision, the Constitution Bench has indicated that the meaning of 'withhold' under Article 200, and whether such discretion can amount to an absolute veto, will be central to its opinion.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Will the new Online Gaming Bill spell disaster for India's betting platforms?
The government's new online gaming bill may halt online betting. It follows a pattern of stifling industries instead of regulating them. Earlier, commodity futures and forex markets faced similar fates. The move comes before a Supreme Court ruling on gaming legality. The court will decide on skill versus chance and GST issues. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads We have done it again. All the king's men have come together to exorcise an old ghost, another spectre of 'foreign influence', that could have been tamed, harnessed and used to our advantage. Instead, we let it haunt us for years. And then in one fell swoop, we break in to cleanse and lustrate ourselves, treading the familiar path of least resistance with righteous claims to protect the poor, the Indian culture and the moral fabric of the the leitmotif of a governance style: kill it, if you cannot regulate it. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill has again brought it to the the Bill becomes a law, it would mark the end of the road for online betting on games like poker or rummy, or wagers on various outcomes - from what could be the bitcoin price in the next 24 hours to a wicket in the next what if it is 'game over' for some betting platforms that hire cricketers and actors to lure people with little money, clueless about what they are betting on? Perhaps no big deal. What, however, is startling is the way New Delhi moved in to crush an industry after letting it grow, attract investments and hire thousands, without trying to find a way to discipline the trade. Like cryptocurrencies, GoI, while shy to regulate gaming, has been nonetheless vocal in taxing rush to squeeze a complex business without sensing its potential is not confined to gaming. Commodity futures were clamped down out of fear it would raise grain prices, for decades, India behaved like the proverbial ostrich as betting on the rupee flourished in Singapore, London and Dubai, and, more recently, a regulatory paranoia killed the forex futures market. Today, stifling taxes and reluctant bankers are pushing crypto trades overseas. We either tactlessly drove markets underground or 'exported' them to other countries. And while this went on, various stock options products were floated to entice retail investors who routinely lose real-money gaming (RMG) story could have played out differently. No gov should ignore reports of farmers ending their lives or the poor, led up the garden path with glitzy ads and deceptive promises, falling into debt traps. But these harrowing incidents could have been avoided with rules and gatekeepers: persons below a minimum income or net worth could have been shunned from the gaming wonderland, sizes of bets could have been lowered, and the number of bets a person can place in a month could have been capped by improvising the platform Nadu, Karnataka, Sikkim, Nagaland and other states with gaming frenzy could have come together with GoI, burying their differences, to decide the rules of the game and find common ground to address painful social everyone dug in their heels. Like many issues, gaming too turned political. States clung to their right as gaming - whether gambling, entertainment or digital sport - is a 'state subject'. GoI kept it in a limbo for a long time. And a fragmented, cut-throat world of gaming companies, fuelled by private equity money, turned greedy, refusing to settle for lower volumes and player India could have housed an RMG hub in the GIFT City, inviting foreigners and residents to bet. We may want to be another Singapore and not Macau, but there's no harm if we can be both, and it would be a pity if we are neither. While the Bill wants to foster 'social games' and 'e-sports', these benign pastimes may not transform into a vibrant, bankable Bill's timing was impeccable: a day before the current Parliament session ends and well before the Supreme Court verdict expected before the House resumes in winter. The apex court would rule on multiple matters: whether poker and rummy are a game of 'skill' or 'chance', the huge retroactive GST claim on the industry, and the fate of the Karnataka and Madras High Courts' decisions that thwarted the two state Bills - similar to the one drafted by GoI - to curb SC sets aside the HC rulings, it would squash any hope the industry harbours. If it upholds HC rulings, or rules out a blanket ban on RMG, it could put a question mark on the new Bill and come as a glimmer of hope to the trade. Either way, the Bill may be challenged on expected grounds: GoI's legislative competence to act on a state subject, restricting the right to trade, and arbitrarily bundling the games of skill and chance. What would the top court do? Well, that is an outcome no gamer has the skill to predict - it's an unmixed game of ambush Bill tailed by a guessing game over a future court ruling can liven up conversations and enthral viewers of the 9 o'clock news. But does it bode well for business?
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
A historic move, but still unequal
Hoping to bring down the curtain on the three-decade-old struggle for internal reservation, the Karnataka government on Tuesday agreed on a matrix for slicing up the overall 17% reservation for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) in the State. The Madiga community (Dalit left), who led the struggle from the front, will now get a 6% share in the overall matrix. The relatively better-off Dalit right (Holeya) group will receive 6%, while the 'less backward' communities of Lambanis, Bhovis, Korama, and Koracha — along with 59 microscopic communities — have been allocated 5%. The demand for internal reservation, which gained momentum over the past decade and a half, received judicial clearance last August, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of creating a matrix within the larger SC quota. In Karnataka, 101 castes have been notified as SCs. The government mostly relied on the recommendations of the one-man commission headed by retired judge H.N. Nagamohan Das, who submitted a report on August 4. The report recommended classifications following a two-month house-to-house survey, which collected empirical data on the socio-economic and educational backwardness of about 93% of Karnataka's estimated 1.16 crore SC population. The Cabinet's decision, announced by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, appears to have been weighed down by political compulsions. While the commission recommended five categories based on backwardness, the government reduced these to three to accommodate the demands of the politically stronger Dalit right and 'less backward' communities. In doing so, the State government let go of Category A, which was recommended for 1% reservation by the commission for the most backward 59 microscopic communities, many of which have double-digit populations and no representation in bureaucracy or politics. The Cabinet also dropped the 1% reservation recommended for Adi Karnataka, Adi Dravida, and Adi Andhra communities under Category E. They have been split between right and left groups. Under the new categorisation, microscopic communities — around 4.97% of the total SC population — will now have to fight with relatively better-off 'less backward' SC communities that have made strides in securing education and finding public sector employment. While many concede that bringing consensus among all groups vying to have a bigger pie in the matrix was not easy, it was believed that in the jockeying for a higher share, the microscopic communities — many of them nomadic — did not get the justice they had hoped for. Of the six Dalit Ministers in the Cabinet, none represents these communities, and there was no voice in their favour. In the final decision, both Dalit right and 'less backward' communities received 1% more than the commission's recommendations. In Karnataka, the Dalit left is seen as veering towards the BJP, while the Dalit right is believed to be with the Congress. The 'less backward' communities are believed to be divided between the BJP and Congress. The question of internal reservation has been an important component of Dalit politics in Karnataka over the past two decades. While the A.J. Sadashiva Commission, set up in 2005, submitted its report in 2012, the internal reservation remained mostly rhetoric as Dalit right groups successfully brought pressure on the government not to implement its recommendations. The judiciary then had also not cleared the internal reservation. The BJP government in 2022 tried to tinker with the recommendations and came out with its matrix that was unacceptable to Dalit right and 'less backward' communities. It also increased the overall reservation for SCs from 15% to 17%. Ahead of the 2023 Assembly elections, the Congress promised in its manifesto to introduce internal reservation. Following the commission's recommendations, though not officially released, Dalit right groups have been vigorously campaigning against the report, urging the government to drop it in what was seen as a posture for hard bargaining. While the clearing of the internal quota is historic, in the end, the relatively more powerful communities within the larger SC population seem to have gained an upper hand, while the most marginalised still have a long fight.
