R.K. Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, President And Ors.

1. The applicant Mr Motilal Vohra claimed that he was aggrieved by the order dated 3.6.2013 declaring 6 political parties as public authorities.

2. The applicant stated that he filed a separate application on 17.6.2016 vide diary no 146123 in complaint cases i.e, C.C. No. CIC/SM/C/2011/001386 and C.C. No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000838 for recalling/setting aside the Commission's order dated 3.6.2016.

3. During the hearings on 22.7.2016 and 8.12.2016 both the parties presented their arguments. Mr. KC Mittal, learned counsel for appellant/INC argued that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) WP(C) 333/2015 ADR & Mr SC Agarwal v. Union of India, Election Commission and 6 political parties is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and once the apex court is seized of the matter, CIC need to wait until it is decided finally. He also wanted to defer the hearing of complaint until their application against order dated 3.6.2013 is decided by the Chief Information Commissioner.

4. The complainant and learned advocate Mr. RK Jain opposed vehemently saying that the present bench of CIC has been constituted to hear the complaints. He further stated that the application of Mr. Motilal Vohra was not before this bench at all, as that was filed before the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner. He also contended that according to RTI Act, the order of full bench dated 3.6.2013 has assumed finality because none challenged it till now. Mr Jain pointed out that the Commission has no power to review its own order, as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DDA v. Central Information Commission, WP(C) 12714/2009 dated 21.5.2010 and reiterated in Union Of India v. Suhas Chakma on 1 April, 2016, hence, both on facts and law this bench is not concerned with the application of INC.

5. Referring to the prayer in the PIL filed by ADR and Mr. SC Agarwal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr Jain said that no challenge was posed against the order of CIC dated 3.6.2013. In fact, the petitioners wanted all national and regional parties to be directed to disclose certain details for public scrutiny on lines of the 6 major political parties who were declared as public authorities. Hence, there is no point in waiting for final disposal of this PIL

6. The prayer in the PIL filed by ADR and Mr SC Agarwal is as follows:

- To issue appropriate writ declaring all national and regional political parties to be public authority under RTI Act as per CIC order dated 3.6.2016 and thereby to fulfil all obligations under the said act;

- To issue appropriate writ declaring all national and regional political parties to mandatorily disclose the following for public scrutiny:

- Complete details of their income and expenditure

- Entire details of donations and funding received by them irrespective of amount donated;

- Full details of donors making donations to them and to electoral trusts

7. As per the judgements referred above the CIC has no power to review its own orders or orders of other Commissioners. Thus, the question of this bench directing the other Commissioners or.the Chief Information Commissioner does not arise at all.

8. For the above reasons this application is rejected.

ORDER ON INTERVENTION PETITION

Sridhar Acharyulu, Sudhir Bhargava and Bimal Julka, ICs

Brief Facts:

1. Mr Jagdeep S Chhokar, on behalf of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed petition for intervention on 30.5.2016 as necessary party in these complaints.

2. Mr RK Jain and Mr KC Mittal objected to the intervention of Mr Jagdeep S Chhokar, ADR. In reply the petitioner reiterated the need for their assistance to the Commission in arriving at proper conclusion in making the political parties comply with the Right to Information Act.

DECISION

3. Intervention petition was filed by Mr Jagdeep S Chhokar (ADR) who is not a party to the complaint under consideration. The petitioner is representing a reputed NGO serving various public causes including transparency and Right to Information related issues. The study of petition and the contentions of petitioner reflect that the petitioner expresses genuine interest in rendering assistance to the bench.

4. The complainant and the standing counsel for Indian National Congress (INC) contended that according to scheme of Right to Information Act, the complaint under section 18(1) is strictly between complaining party and the CPIO or the public authority before the Commission, others have no place and once the complaint is admitted and the Commission considers it is necessary to initiate penalty proceedings, it will be strictly between the Commission and the respondent, where even the complainant may not be an essential party according to Delhi High Court order in case of Maniram Sharma Petitioner v. Central Information Commission & Anr. S dated 27 April, 2015 in W.P.(C) 8041/2014. In this case the court held that the complainant cannot as a matter of right claim audience in the penalty proceedings, which are between the CIC and the PIO.

5. The petitioner wants to render assistance, though he cannot be joined as a party to the complaint proceedings between Mr. R.K. Jain and Indian National Congress.

6. After considering the contentions of the complainant, petitioners and the respondent, the bench allows the request of the petitioner to render assistance, preferably in writing, for which the petitioner need not be incorporated as a necessary party. The petitioner is thus permitted to render assistance as per the requirement of the bench.

7. Subject to above facilitation of assistance, the petition for intervention is rejected.

ORDER ON INTERVENTION PETITION

M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Sudhir Bhargava and Bimal Julka, ICs

Brief Facts:

1. Mr. Venkatesh Nayak and Mr. Govind Nayak have filed application for intervention as necessary party on 14.6.2016 in these complaints.

2. Mr RK Jain and Mr KC Mittal objected to the intervention of Mr. Venkatesh Nayak and Mr. Govind Nayak. In reply the petitioner reiterated the need for their assistance to the Commission in arriving at proper conclusion in making the political parties comply with the Right to Information Act.

DECISION

3. Intervention petition was filed by Mr. Venkatesh Nayak and Mr. Govind Nayak who are not party to the complaint under consideration. The petitioners are representing a reputed NGO serving various public causes including transparency and Right to Information related issues. The study of petition and the contentions of petitioners reflect that the petitioners express genuine interest in rendering assistance to the bench.

4. The complainant and the standing counsel for Indian National Congress (INC) contended that according to scheme of Right to Information Act, the complaint under section 18(1) is strictly between complaining party and the CPIO or the public authority before the Commission, others have no place and once the complaint is admitted and the Commission considers it is necessary to initiate penalty proceedings, it will be strictly between the Commission and the respondent, where even the complainant may not be an essential party according to Delhi High Court order in case of Maniram Sharma Petitioner v. Central Information Commission & Anr. S dated 27 April, 2015 in W.P.(C) 8041/2014. In this case the court held that the complainant cannot as a matter of right claim audience in the penalty proceedings, which are between the CIC and the PIO.

5. The petitioners want to render assistance, though he cannot be joined as a party to the complaint proceedings between Mr. R.K. Jain and Indian National Congress.

6. After considering the contentions of the complainant, petitioners and the respondent, the bench allows the petitioners to render assistance, preferably in writing, for which they need not be incorporated as a necessary party. The petitioners are thus permitted to render assistance as per the requirement of the bench.

7. Subject to above facilitation of assistance, the petition for intervention is rejected.