words per minute
58
moonis97
00:00
Speed
The Union of India is perhaps technically correct in contending as it does that the jurisdiction to impose penalty and compensation stems out of Section 19 (8) (b) is on the premise that the information application has not been dealt with correctly and was imposed here by CIC that the applicant had to suffer mental agony due to lack of or withholding of information. However, the facts as they have unfolded in this case cannot be overlooked by this Court. The Jurisdiction to direct compensation under the Act, has to be understood as arising in relation to culpability of the organization's inability to respond suitably, in time, or otherwise, to the information applicant. This is necessarily so, because penalty is imposed on the individual responsible for delayed response, or withholding of information without reasonable cause. To that extent, the Union's complaint about lack of jurisdiction of CIC in this case, is justified. Any other construction on the CIC powers under Section 19 and 20 would result in recognizing wide powers to grant compensation, without indicating the process and procedures normally available and expected, in such cases. Further, clothing CIC with such jurisdiction to compensate applicants for general wrongs, without any statutory guidance about the limits, or method of determining such compensation would lead to highly anomalous and unpredictable WP (C) 6661/2008 Page 7 of 7 consequences which the Act did not intend. A citizen applied for passport and had to wait for more than nine months to be told what were the deficiencies. He had to seek recourse under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CIC felt constrained to impose a paltry compensation amount of Rs.5000. The Union, which is expected to and is duty bound to disclose information - and not merely under the RTI, being the primary authority to issue passports, about the fate of such application - has now chosen to question such imposition of a meager amount of compensation.