Central Information Commission vs Delhi Development Authority

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2230 OF 2012 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS D.D.A. & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The autonomy and independence of

administrative bodies are fundamental to their

ability to perform their designated functions

effectively. These institutions are established to

carry out specialized tasks that require a level of

impartiality and expertise, which can only be

achieved if they are free from undue interference.

Signature Not Verified Ensuring their independence is essential for Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2024.07.12 17:31:40 IST Reason: maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 1 of 36 administrative system. Interfering in the

functioning of these bodies can be detrimental,

as it undermines their ability to operate

efficiently and impartially. Such interference

can stem from restrictive interpretations of their

powers or direct interventions that impede their

operational autonomy. Administrative bodies

must have the freedom to establish and

implement internal procedures and regulations

that best suit their unique mandates and

operational needs. The principle of non-

interference is not merely an administrative

convenience but a cornerstone for upholding the

rule of law and ensuring that these bodies can

serve the public interest effectively. When these

institutions are allowed to function without

external pressures, they can make decisions

based on expertise and objective criteria, which

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 2 of 36 enhances their credibility and public trust.

2. The present appeal challenges the judgment

and order dated 21.05.2010, passed by the High

Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12714 of

2009. The High Court, by the impugned order,

quashed the Central Information Commission

(Management) Regulations, 2007 1 framed by

the Chief Information Commissioner2 and held

that the CIC has no power to constitute Benches

of the Commission. This appeal is confined to

the issue of the validity of the Regulations and

the powers of the CIC under Section 12(4) of the

Right to Information Act, 20053.

3. The matter originates from an application filed

by one Mr. Sarbjeet Roy, proforma Respondent

No.2, under Section 18 read with Section 19 of

1 In short, “the Regulations” 2 In short, “CIC” 3 In short, “the RTI Act”

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 3 of 36 the RTI Act, seeking information concerning the

ongoing modification of the Master Plan of Delhi

for the year 2021 4. The applicant also sought

directions to the Delhi Development Authority5

to fulfil its obligations under Section 4 of the RTI

Act, which mandates proactive disclosure of

information by public authorities.

4. On 22.09.2009, the CIC issued an order

directing the constitution of a Committee to

inquire into the matter of compliance with

Section 4 of the RTI Act by the DDA and to

submit a report to the Commission. The

Committee comprised Ms. Sujata Chaturvedi,

Director, Ministry of Urban Development; Shri

Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre, Delhi; and Shri

Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar, CIC.

4 In short, “MPD 2021” 5 In short, “DDA”

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 4 of 36

5. Aggrieved by this order, the Contesting

Respondent authority-DDA filed a Writ Petition

(C) No. 12714/2009 before the Delhi High Court.

During the proceedings before the Delhi High

Court, the DDA specifically challenged the

summoning of its Vice-Chairman by the CIC,

arguing that such authority is vested solely with

the High Court. The DDA underscored those

certain powers, such as summoning high-

ranking officials and conducting detailed

inquiries, were traditionally within the domain

of Supreme Court and High Court having

plenary powers. They argued that the CIC, as an

administrative body, should not exercise such

powers as it would blur the lines between

administrative and judicial functions. However,

the High Court expanded its examination

beyond this specific challenge. It delved into the

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 5 of 36 broader issue of the CIC's authority under

Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, ultimately

questioning and declaring the Regulations

framed by the CIC as ultra vires.

6. The High Court framed the following questions

to determine the issues at hand:

“I. Whether the Central Information

Commission has the authority, under the

RTI Act and the Rules made thereunder, to

appoint a committee comprising individuals

other than the Commission's members to

investigate the implementation of

obligations imposed on a public authority,

such as the DDA, by Section 4 of the RTI

Act?

II. Whether the Chief Information

Commissioner possessed the power to enact

the Central Information Commission

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 6 of 36 (Management) Regulations, 2007 under

Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, particularly

concerning the provisions in Chapter IV,

which address 'registration, abatement, or

return of appeals'?”

III. Whether the Central Information

Commission had the authority to mandate

the appearance of the Vice-Chairman, DDA,

in its proceedings?”

7. The High Court, after examining the matter at

length, came to the following conclusions on the

aforementioned three questions:

a) Regarding the first question, the High Court

concluded that the CIC does not have such

power. The Court held that the CIC's

authority is confined to the provisions

explicitly stated in the RTI Act, which do not

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 7 of 36 include the power to delegate its inquiry

responsibilities to a committee.

b) On the second question, the High Court

found that the CIC exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Court determined that Section 12(4) of

the RTI Act does not confer legislative power

on the CIC to frame such Regulations,

especially those that go beyond procedural

management and touch upon substantive

matters.

c) As for the third question, the High Court

concluded that such powers are reserved for

a judicial authority, specifically the

Supreme Court or the High Court. The

Court held that the CIC does not possess

the jurisdiction to summon high-ranking

officials such as the Vice-Chairman of the

DDA, thereby overstepping its statutory

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 8 of 36 limits.

8. We have heard Learned Attorney General of

India, Mr. R Venkataramani, appearing for the

appellant, Mr. Nitin Mishra, learned counsel for

DDA which is the Respondent No. 1 and have

perused the submissions of Mr. Sarbajit Roy,

Respondent No. 2.

9. The arguments of the Attorney General on

behalf of the appellant are briefly summarized

hereunder:

I. The Central Information Commission (CIC),

under the authority granted by Section 12(4)

of the RTI Act, framed the Central

Information Commission (Management)

Regulations, 2007, to manage the affairs of

the CIC effectively. Section 12(4) of the RTI

Act confers upon the CIC the power of

‘general superintendence, direction, and

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 9 of 36 management of the affairs of the CIC’. This

broad authority allows the CIC to take

necessary actions for the efficient

functioning of the Commission, including

the formation of benches for the allocation

of work among Information Commissioners.

II. The absence of an explicit provision for the

formation of benches in the RTI Act does not

negate the CIC's authority to do so. The

power to form benches is inherently

included within the CIC's general

superintendence and management

responsibilities. The broad language of

Section 12(4) of the RTI Act indicates that

the CIC has comprehensive authority to

organize the internal functioning of the

Commission, which necessarily includes

the ability to form benches for the efficient

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 10 of 36 handling of cases.

III. The ability to form benches is essential for

the efficient disposal of the large volume of

cases handled by the CIC. The Commission

registers nearly 20,000 cases annually and

deals with approximately 1,500 cases

monthly. Hearing cases collectively by all

the Information Commissioners and the

CIC together would be cumbersome and

would adversely affect the expeditious and

effective disposal of cases. The formation of

benches allows for the efficient allocation of

work and ensures the timely handling of

cases, which is crucial for upholding the

right to information.

IV. The distinction between rule-making power

conferred upon the Central Government

and regulation-making power conferred on

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 11 of 36 statutory bodies like the CIC supports the

Commission’s authority to frame

Regulations for internal management and

functional allocation. The regulation-

making power deals with matters of internal

management, functional allocation, and

measures in aid of discharge of functions.

This distinction validates the CIC’s

approach and underscores its authority to

manage its affairs autonomously without

impinging on the rule-making powers of the

Central Government.

V. The principle of non-interference is crucial

for maintaining the integrity and efficacy of

the CIC. Any undue interference in its

administrative functions, such as the power

to constitute benches, would significantly

impede its ability to handle the large volume

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 12 of 36 of cases efficiently and expeditiously.

Allowing the Commission to function

independently and exercise its powers of

superintendence, direction, and

management without external constraints

is essential for fulfilling its role in promoting

transparency and accountability.

VI. The practical necessity of forming benches

is further underscored by the large volume

of cases the CIC handles. The Commission

deals with a substantial number of cases

each month, and having all Information

Commissioners and the CIC hear cases

collectively would be impractical and

counterproductive. The formation of

benches allows for better case management,

timely disposal, and effective

implementation of the RTI Act's objectives,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 13 of 36 ensuring that the right to information is

upheld in both letter and spirit.

10. On behalf of the respondent no.1-DDA, learned

counsel stated that he has no instructions to

address on the issue of Regulations being

declared as ultra vires. However, respondent

no.2 although was not present at the time of

hearing, he has filed written submissions which

are summarised hereunder:

I. The respondents underscored that certain

powers, such as summoning high-ranking

officials and conducting detailed inquiries,

were traditionally within the domain of

judicial authorities. They argued that the

CIC, as an administrative body, should not

exercise such powers as it would blur the

lines between administrative and judicial

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 14 of 36 functions. The respondent contended that

the High Court was correct in quashing the

CIC’s order and Regulations to maintain the

distinction between administrative and

judicial roles.

II. The respondent highlighted a contradiction

between the appellant's assurances and the

Central Government's official stance. They

noted that the Department of Personnel and

Training (DoPT) had consistently stated that

orders passed by single benches of the CIC

were void due to the lack of provisions in the

RTI Act authorizing the CIC to constitute

separate benches. This position had been

conveyed to the CIC and was published on

the DoPT website. The respondent

referenced the DoPT's correspondence and

legal opinions obtained from the Ministry of

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 15 of 36 Law and Justice. These opinions confirmed

that the RTI Act did not empower the CIC to

constitute benches. They cited specific

letters and internal notes from the DoPT,

which reinforced the view that the CIC

should function as a full commission rather

than through benches.

III. The respondents maintained that neither

the RTI Act nor the rules made thereunder

provided for the formation of benches by the

CIC. They emphasized that the absence of

explicit provisions for benches indicated

that the legislature did not intend to grant

such powers to the CIC. As such, the CIC’s

action in constituting benches exceeded the

scope of its statutory authority.

IV. The respondents contended that the CIC

had overstepped its jurisdiction by

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 16 of 36 delegating its inquiry powers to a committee

comprising non-members. They argued that

only the CIC itself or its members had the

statutory authority to conduct inquiries

under the RTI Act. The formation of such a

committee, according to the respondent,

violated the provisions of the RTI Act and

undermined the statutory framework.

V. The respondents supported the High

Court’s reasoning that the CIC’s

Regulations exceeded the powers conferred

by the RTI Act. They endorsed the High

Court’s interpretation that the broad

powers of superintendence, direction, and

management did not encompass the

authority to frame Regulations for

constituting benches or forming committees

of non-members. The respondents agreed

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 17 of 36 with the High Court’s view that Regulation

22 was ultra vires the RTI Act and the rules

made thereunder.

VI. The respondents highlighted the potential

negative impact of the CIC’s actions on the

functioning of public authorities. They

argued that summoning high-ranking

officials, such as the Vice-Chairman of the

DDA, and constituting committees of non-

members could create an undue burden on

public authorities and disrupt their

functioning. The respondents maintained

that such actions were not envisaged by the

RTI Act and should be curtailed to ensure

the smooth operation of public authorities.

VII. The respondents described the CIC's

current system as dysfunctional,

highlighting issues like the establishment of

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 18 of 36 multiple registries, arbitrary procedures,

and a significant backlog of cases. They

argued that the CIC's actions under the

guise of autonomy had led to inefficiencies

and delays, undermining the RTI Act's

objectives.

11. The CIC has approached this Court by way of

the present appeal against the High Court's

judgment. The appellant, while not challenging

the quashing of the order dated 22.9.2009,

seeks to challenge the High Court's judgment

regarding the Regulations and the scope of the

powers vested in the CIC under Section 12(4) of

the RTI Act. The CIC maintains that the

Regulations were framed within the scope of its

statutory authority to ensure effective

management and functioning of the

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 19 of 36 Commission and that the ability to constitute

Committees is an integral part of this mandate.

12. Having considered the respective submissions,

the primary issue to be considered is whether

the CIC, under the provisions of Section 12(4) of

the RTI Act, has the authority to constitute

benches of the CIC and frame Regulations for

the effective management and allocation of work

within the Commission, including the issuance

of orders and the formation of committees.

13. At the outset, it is pertinent to elaborate on the

relevant provisions of the RTI Act apropos the

present issue. Section 12 of the RTI Act outlines

the constitution and powers of the CIC. The

Central Government is mandated to establish

the CIC, which consists of the CIC and a

specified number of Information Commissioners,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 20 of 36 not exceeding ten, as deemed necessary.

Crucially, Section 12(4) of the RTI Act grants

CIC the general superintendence, direction, and

management of the Commission's affairs. This

provision implies that the CIC has

comprehensive authority to oversee and direct

the functioning This broad section allows the

CIC to implement measures that ensure smooth

and efficient functioning of the Commission,

including the formation of benches of the

Commission, including making decisions

necessary for its effective operation.

14. Section 15 of the RTI Act mirrors the provisions

of Section 12 but applies to the State

Information Commissions. It similarly

establishes the State Information Commissions

and outlines the powers and responsibilities of

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 21 of 36 the State Chief Information Commissioner and

State Information Commissioners. Both

Sections 12 and 15 of the RTI Act use similar

language, emphasizing the wide-ranging powers

of the CIC and the State Chief Information

Commissioners to manage their respective

commissions' affairs autonomously and without

external interference. This language clearly

suggests that the legislative intent was to

provide these officials with broad authority to

ensure their commissions function effectively.

15. The High Court of Delhi, in its impugned

judgment dated 21.05.2010, quashed the

Regulations framed by the CIC. The Court

specifically took issue with Regulation 22,

which dealt with the constitution of Benches

within the Commission. The High Court held

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 22 of 36 that the RTI Act did not explicitly provide for the

formation of benches by the CIC. According to

the Court, the statutory framework and rules

made under the RTI Act did not contain any

provision allowing for Single or Division

Benches of Information Commissioners.

16. In our opinion, the High Court's interpretation

was based on a restrictive reading of the RTI Act,

focusing on the absence of explicit provisions for

benches within the RTI Act. The High Court

noted that Regulation 22 exceeded the limits of

the powers prescribed under the RTI Act and

rules. It emphasized that the RTI Act required

orders to be pronounced in open proceedings,

while Regulation 22 permitted orders to be

placed on the website or communicated to

parties, deviating from the statutory

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 23 of 36 requirement. This Court believes that a broader

interpretation of the RTI Act is warranted. The

general superintendence, direction, and

management powers vested in the CIC imply a

wide- ranging authority to organize the internal

functioning of the Commission, including the

ability to constitute benches. This interpretation

aligns with the purpose and objective of the RTI

Act, which aims to facilitate the efficient

disposal of cases and the effective

implementation of the right to information.

17. The absence of an explicit provision for Benches

does not negate the CIC's authority to constitute

them, as such powers are implicitly included

within the scope of the CIC's general

superintendence and management

responsibilities. The broad language of the RTI

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 24 of 36 Act indicates an intention to grant the CIC

comprehensive authority to ensure the effective

and efficient functioning of the Commission.

The Delhi High Court's narrow reading of the

provisions overlooked the inherent powers of the

CIC to manage the affairs of the Commission.

The RTI Act's broad language suggests that the

legislative intent was to provide the CIC with the

necessary authority to implement measures

that ensure the Commission's effective

operation.

18. In the present case, the RTI Act should be

interpreted purposively, taking into account the

broader objectives of the legislation. The

purpose of the RTI Act is to promote

transparency and accountability in the

functioning of public authorities, ensuring

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 25 of 36 citizens' right to information. To achieve these

objectives effectively, it is essential that the

Central Information Commission operates

efficiently and without undue procedural

constraints. The principle of purposive

interpretation supports the view that the CIC's

powers under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act

include all necessary measures to manage and

direct the Commission's affairs effectively. This

includes the ability to form benches to handle

the increasing volume of cases. The formation of

Benches allows for the efficient allocation of

work and ensures the timely disposal of cases,

which is crucial for upholding the right to

information.

19. Furthermore, the High Court's reliance on the

absence of explicit provisions for Benches

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 26 of 36 overlooks the broad language of Sections 12(4)

and 15(4) of the RTI Act, which grants the CIC

and State Chief Information Commissioners

wide-ranging powers to manage their respective

Commissions' affairs. The legislative intent, as

reflected by the broad language of these

provisions, was to provide these officials with

the necessary authority to ensure that their

Commissions function effectively and efficiently.

These provisions explicitly use the words

“superintendence, direction and management”

of the affairs of the Commission. There have

been various landmark judgements of this

Court which have interpreted the words

"superintendence, direction, and control"

occurring in Article 324 (1) of the Constitution

in respect of the Election Commission.

20. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Election

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 27 of 36 Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar6, has

recognized the wide ambit of the powers given to

the Election Commission for the

superintendence, direction, and control of the

Election process.

“…13. Article 324 of the Constitution contemplates constitution of the Election Commission in which shall vest the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under the Constitution. The words “superintendence, direction and control” have a wide connotation so as to include therein such powers which though not specifically provided but are necessary to be exercised for effectively accomplishing the task of holding the elections to their completion…”

21. Similarly, in Union of India Vs. Association for

6 (2000) 8 SCC 216

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 28 of 36 Democratic Reforms7, this Court has held that

Article 324 allows the Election Commission to

operate in areas of laws which are not explicitly

mentioned in the legislation.

*** “ 26. The aforesaid decision of the Constitution Bench unreservedly lays down that in democracy the little man — voter — has overwhelming importance on the point and the little-large Indian (voter) should not be hijacked from the course of free and fair elections by subtle perversion of discretion of casting votes. In a continual participative operation of periodical election, the voter does a social audit of his candidate and for such audit he must be well informed about the past of his candidate. Further, Article 324 operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation and the words “superintendence, direction and control” as well as “conduct of all elections” are the broadest terms. The silence of statute has no exclusionary effect except where it flows from necessary implication. Therefore, in our view, it would be difficult to accept the

7 (2002) 5 SCC 294

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 29 of 36 contention raised by Mr Salve, learned Solicitor-General and Mr Ashwani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor that if there is no provision in the Act or the Rules, the High Court ought not to have issued such directions to the Election Commission. It is settled that the power of the Commission is plenary in character in exercise thereof. In statutory provisions or rules, it is known that every contingency could not be foreseen or anticipated with precision, therefore, the Commission can cope with a situation where the field is unoccupied by issuing necessary orders.”

22. Therefore, the use of the words

“superintendence, direction and management”

in Sections 12(4) and 15(4) of the RTI Act clearly

provides the CIC an ambit of power wide enough

to frame its own Regulations and to delegate its

power to a committee formed by it. The Central

Information Commission, utilizing these broad

powers, has enacted 'The Central Information

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 30 of 36 Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007.'

While the RTI Act does not explicitly grant CIC

the authority to frame Regulations, the

overarching powers granted under Section 12(4)

of the RTI Act inherently include the ability to

manage the Commission’s affairs effectively.

These Regulations are essential tools for

ensuring the efficient administration and

operation of the Commission, addressing

various procedural and managerial aspects

necessary for fulfilling its mandate. Focusing

narrowly on the nomenclature and the absence

of an explicit provision for Regulation-making

within the RTI Act would undermine the broader

purpose and intent of the same. The

nomenclature used to describe these

Regulations should not detract from their

necessity and their role in facilitating the

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 31 of 36 Commission’s functioning. A purposive

interpretation of Section 12(4) of the RTI Act

reveals that the powers of "superintendence,

direction and management" are intended to be

comprehensive, enabling the CIC to adopt

measures, including the framing of Regulations,

that ensure transparency, accountability, and

efficient handling of its responsibilities. Thus,

the creation of these Regulations is not only

justified but crucial for the CIC to manage its

workload and operational demands effectively,

thereby serving the core objectives of the RTI Act.

23. At this juncture, it is necessary to elucidate that

under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, the CIC has

the authority to issue various forms of

administrative guidelines, directives and

instructions essential for the effective

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 32 of 36 management of its affairs. The 'Central

Information Commission (Management)

Regulations, 2007,' framed by the CIC, could

have been pronounced as 'Circulars,' 'By-laws,'

or any other similar administrative orders. The

primary objections have been raised due to the

word "Regulations," which respondents argue,

confers the gravity of a separate legislation.

However, this interpretation misses the

substantive purpose behind these measures.

The use of the term "Regulations" should not

detract from their function, which is akin to any

other administrative orders or circulars that an

authority like the CIC might promulgate to

ensure the smooth operation of its duties. The

essence of these regulations lies in their role in

facilitating the internal management and

procedural operations of the Commission, a

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 33 of 36 necessity clearly envisioned by the broad

powers of superintendence, direction, and

management granted under Section 12(4) of the

RTI Act. By focusing on the terminology, the

objections fail to appreciate the functional

equivalence of these regulations to other forms

of administrative guidance. The regulations

were crafted to address the practical needs of

the Commission, providing structure and clarity

to its operations, in any administrative context.

Therefore, raising objections based solely on the

label "Regulations" is an exercise in semantics

rather than a substantive argument.

24. We believe that the autonomy of the Central

Information Commission is of paramount

importance to its effective functioning. Any

undue interference in its administrative

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 34 of 36 functions, such as the power to constitute

benches, would significantly impede its ability

to handle the large volume of cases efficiently

and expeditiously. The CIC must be allowed to

operate independently and exercise its powers

of superintendence, direction, and management

without external constraints. The principle of

non-interference is crucial for maintaining the

integrity and efficacy of the CIC. Allowing the

Commission to function autonomously ensures

that it can fulfil its role in promoting

transparency and accountability, which are the

cornerstones of the RTI Act. The ability to form

benches and allocate work among Information

Commissioners is essential for the CIC to

manage its workload effectively and uphold the

citizens' right to information.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 35 of 36

25. The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the

judgment of the Delhi High Court, is set aside.

The Chief Information Commissioner’s powers

to frame Regulations pertaining to constitution

of Benches of the Commission are upheld as

such powers are within the ambit of Section

12(4) of the RTI Act.

26. There shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI JULY 10, 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2012 Page 36 of 36