“CIC need not be made party to writ petition when its order is challenged”

Whenever an order of the State or Central Information Commission is challenged, it is not necessary to make the Commission a party to the writ petition, the Madras High Court has ruled. The Commission is a statutory appellate authority and is expected to function within the four corners of the RTI Act.

In his order on two writ petitions challenging an order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (TNIC), Justice K.Chandru said if the Commission’s order was challenged, it was not expected to defend it. In a writ for certiorari, the order would have to speak for itself. “If the Commission is made as a party, it will be an unnecessary drain on the Commission to engage counsel to defend its orders.” In no case a court was expected to defend its decisions. More often, the Commission’s orders were being challenged by government departments or information officers at the government’s expense.

For calling for records or sending an order copy, the Commission need not be made a party. If proper records were not filed, a notice may be sent by the Registry to call for the records if the courts ordered it. Likewise, in complicated matters if any legal assistance is required, the court could appoint an amicus curiae. The Registry should, henceforth, tell the counsel who files petitions to delete the information commission from the array of parties. This would not only reduce paper work and administrative difficulties faced by the Commission, but also save it from draining its meagre resources, Mr.Justice Chandru said.

M.Velayutham and S.Pandian filed writ petitions against a TNIC order dated March 17, 2008. The Commission said Mr.Velayutham, who was the secretary of Rasipuram Teachers and Government Servants Cooperative Housing Society, should be placed under suspension. Disciplinary action should be initiated against Mr.Pandian, Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), Salem, for disobedience of the Commission’s order. A maximum penalty of Rs.25,000 was imposed on them.

The first petitioner’s stand was that he and the other petitioner had submitted a reply to all 33 questions by an ex-president of Rasipuram Teacher and Government Servants Cooperative Housing Welfare Association. The petitioners said the penalty had been imposed on them without issuing notice.

Partly allowing the petitions, Mr.Justice Chandru set aside the direction to impose penalty and to take disciplinary action without due notice. It is left to the TNIC to pursue the action further in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners.