Summary
The Chief Information Commissioner’s management powers under Section 12(4) RTI Act include constituting Benches and framing measures for internal administration and allocation of work. The absence of an express bench-making clause did not invalidate those arrangements, and calling them Regulations did not alter their administrative function. The High Court’s contrary ruling was set aside within the appeal’s confined scope.
Issues
- Whether Section 12(4) authorised constitution of Benches and internal management regulations.
- Whether the absence of an express regulation-making provision or the label Regulations invalidated the arrangements.
Provisions considered
- Sections 12(4) and 15(4), Right to Information Act, 2005Broad powers of superintendence, direction and management supported internal organisational measures, including Benches; the analogous State provision reinforced that reading. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Held
- The appeal concerned validity of the management Regulations and the Chief Information Commissioner’s powers. Quashing of the particular September 2009 inquiry order was not challenged; the decision should be read within that confined scope. (¶¶ 2, 11, 12)
- General superintendence, direction and management under Section 12(4) include the authority to constitute Benches and distribute work among Information Commissioners. Statutory silence on Benches does not exclude powers necessarily serving effective operation and timely disposal. (¶¶ 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24)
- The comparable language of Section 15(4), and the purposive reading of such managerial powers, support operational autonomy. The Court described the authority as wide enough for internal regulations and committee arrangements necessary to discharge the Commission’s functions. (¶¶ 14, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The management measures could equally have been called circulars, by-laws or administrative directions. Their function, rather than the label Regulations, determines their character; the terminology did not establish an unauthorised separate legislative exercise. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- The High Court’s restrictive interpretation was rejected, and the power to frame Regulations pertaining to constitution of Benches was upheld under Section 12(4). (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside on the challenged management-Regulations issue. Chief Information Commissioner’s power to frame Regulations concerning constitution of Benches upheld. No costs.