Courts are not outside the ambit of the RTI Act: State Information Commission
Courts are not outside the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and they cannot deny all information on the strength of Rule 12 governing subordinate courts and tribunals, the State Information Commission has said.
Observing that some court officials were denying all information sought under the RTI Act, State Information Commissioner A. Abdul Hakkim said they are not empowered to do so as only judicial proceedings are exempted from disclosure under the Act.
The commission's order came on a complaint filed by Joseph Jacob of Chelambra, Malappuram, against the Information Officer of the Munsiff Court, Chalakudy.
'Punishable offence'
At a time when the Supreme Court and other major courts of the country are telecasting court proceedings live, denial of information by the lower courts is a punishable offence. Only matters under the consideration of judicial officers and judicial proceedings are exempted from the ambit of the RTI. A citizen is entitled to all other information from the courts, according to Mr. Hakkim's order.
Mr. Jacob had filed two applications in the Munsiff Court in June and July 2021. However, the Information Officer concerned, Ajith Kumar, had denied him the information on the grounds that Rule 12 exempted courts from giving out information.
Mr. Joseph had sought copies of auction Sanad, Vakalatnama and related documents. But the officer had taken the stand that the application need not be entertained on the strength of Rule 12 pertaining to subordinate courts and tribunals.
When the commission sought a report from the court on the basis of Mr. Joseph's petition, the new information officer gave him the information. But Mr. Joseph stood firm on his complaint, and the commission had decided to initiate action against Mr. Ajith Kumar under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The latter has been directed to appear before the commission on May 28.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
33 minutes ago
- Hans India
Injured actor Shine Tom Chacko to undergo surgery after father's funeral on Monday
Thrissur: Malayalam actor Shine Tom Chacko, who was injured when his car crashed with a lorry at Dharmapuri in Tamil Nadu, will need to undergo surgery on his left hand, according to doctors attending on him. Speaking to the media here on Saturday, doctors attached to a private hospital in Thrissur said the surgery will take place anytime after the funeral of Chacko's father on Monday. "The actor and his mother were brought from Dharmapuri late on Friday night. Chacko has left humerus multiple fractures, an issue in the backbone's vertebrae, besides having multiple concussions on his body," said Sujoy, the treating orthopaedic surgeon. "All his vitals are stable, and when we informed him about the need for surgery, he said that since his father also passed away in the car crash, the funeral is fixed for Monday," added Sujoy. "His mother also has injuries. She is also stable. She has suffered hip injuries and a minor head injury. She will need rest," added the surgeon. "Chacko asked us when he can resume shooting, and we told him that he needs rest and rehabilitation for six weeks after surgery. He can resume light shooting activities after six weeks, but for doing fight scenes, he will have to wait for three months," said Sujoy. The accident took place on Friday at 6 a.m., and Chacko's father passed away while he was being taken to the hospital. The car occupants included the actor, his father, mother, brother and driver. The family which left from here in the wee hours on Friday was on its way to Bengaluru for the treatment of the actor, who is presently undergoing de-addiction rehabilitation. The actor was in the news since April after he was arrested after nearly three hours of questioning under Sections 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pakistani govt raises salaries of NA speaker, Senate chairman to 1.3 mn: Report
Islamabad: The Pakistani government has formally raised the monthly salaries of the National Assembly speaker and the Senate chairman to Rs 1.3 million, according to a media report on Saturday. The new salary marks a significant rise from their previous salary of Rs 205,000. The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs issued the notification on May 29, but details surfaced on Friday, Samaa TV reported. The monthly salary for both officials has been fixed at Rs 1.3 million and they will also receive an additional 50 per cent as a temporary allowance on top of it, according to the notification. The revised salary structure will be effective retrospectively from January 1, 2025. Live Events Earlier on March 21, it was reported that the salaries and allowances of federal cabinet members had been significantly increased, with federal ministers, ministers of state and advisers receiving hikes of up to 188 per cent. Sources had said that the federal ministers approved a summary of the salary increments for themselves and ministers of state through circulation. An amendment to the Federal Ministers and Ministers of State (Allowances and Salaries) Act, 1975, was approved, paving the way for these increases. Following the bill's approval, the revised salary of a federal minister, minister of state and adviser would stand at Rs 519,000. Previously, federal ministers were earning Rs 200,000, while ministers of state had a salary of Rs 180,000. This decision marked a substantial 159 per cent increase in the salaries of federal ministers, while ministers of state and advisers have witnessed an increment of up to 188 per cent. Earlier this year, the Finance Committee had approved an increase in the salaries of members of the National Assembly and senators, raising their monthly pay to Rs 519,000, according to the report.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state that must be used sparingly: SC
New Delhi, Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22, the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence, and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature." The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention. It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate. "Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2 of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others. The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala. "Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her husband. The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over.
