Skip to main content

Parliament must scrutinize rules under RTI Act made in states

Venkatesh Nayak, Programme Coordinator, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi, writes to Sanjay Kothari, IAS, Secretary to Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training on the need to resolve the constitutional conundrum regarding oversight of the unbridled exercise of powers of delegated legislation by appropriate governments and competent authorities under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act):
***
I am writing to draw your attention to the unresolved issue of the unreasonable exercise of the power of delegated legislation under the RTI Act by delegatees and the absence of effective parliamentary/legislative oversight of the same. You are aware of the fact that some appropriate governments acting under Section 27 and several competent authorities including heads of State Legislatures and Chief Justices of High Courts acting under Section 28 have notified Rules for the implementation of the Act in their jurisdiction that are in clear violation of its letter and spirit. Your Department has written more than once to all delegates to take action to harmonise the RTI Rules in accordance with the Central RTI Rules, 2012. However hardly any positive action is evidenced from their end.
It is well known that Parliament is competent to make laws under both List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 243 of the Constitution. While making laws on subjects covered by either List, Parliament is competent to delegate the power of rule-making to both the Central and the State Governments. Rules made by the Central Government are required to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within specific time limits. Parliament has the power to annul, modify or leave such rules unchanged. Section 29(1) of the RTI Act is indicative of this scheme of parliamentary oversight over the power of delegated legislation exercised by the Central Government. However where a parliamentary statute vests rule-making powers with the State Governments there is only a requirement of laying the Rules before the Legislature. There is no explicit mention of the power of the Legislature to modify or annul the rules in the manner done by Parliament. Section 29(2) of the RTI Act is a typical illustration of this procedure.
In 1979 the Lok Sabha Committee on Subordinate Legislation (LS-CoSL) studied the reports of previous committees which dealt with the subject, heard the Ministry of Law and invited views of the State Governments and the State Legislatures. The findings contained in its 20th Report may be summarised as follows:
A law enacted by Parliament on a subject under the Union List: The LS-CoSL observed that the State Legislatures do not have the power to modify Rules made by State Governments under a law enacted by Parliament on a subject contained in the Union List (page 18). The reasons for such a restriction are discussed in detail in the enclosed extracts of the report. However such laws require the State Government to at least lay those Rules before the Legislature. The State Legislatures may in plenary sessions or through their respective committees on subordinate legislation make recommendations to the State Government to change or withdraw a Rule that is not in tune with the provisions of the principal Act. However they cannot annul or amend any offending Rule in the manner of Parliament.
A law enacted by Parliament on a subject under the Concurrent List: The LS-CoSL observed that where a law is enacted by Parliament under a subject contained in the Concurrent List, the State Legislature can modify or annul any Rule made by the State Government. However this will require an enabling provision in some other State law to empower the State Legislature to act in this manner. At the time of authoring its Report the Committee noted that only Uttar Pradesh and Orissa had amended their respective General Clauses Acts to empower the State Legislatures to modify the Rules made by the State Governments under a law dealing with a Concurrent subject. The LS-CoSL recommended that the Law Ministry under the Government of India follow-up with the other State Governments to amend their own laws in a similar manner. However to the best of my knowledge, since the presentation of LS-CoSL’s 20th Report, Rajasthan is the only State to have incorporated such an amendment in its General Clauses Act in 1993. Other States have not taken any action yet on this matter for reasons best known to them.
Given this scenario, the next question to examine is in which List does the subject matter of the RTI Act fall. The Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the RTI Bill, 2004 did not connect it to any subject in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Instead the RTI Bill stated that the proposed legislation would provide an effective framework for effectuating the right of information recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution. Does this mean that the RTI Act pertains to List III as States can also make laws to give effect to fundamental rights? There is no entry in this List within which RTI can be fitted unequivocally. Or can it be reasoned that Parliament passed this law under its residuary powers of legislation recognized under Article 248? This will put the RTI Act in the domain of exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament. So State Legislatures will not be able to modify or annul Rules notified by the respective Governments. However the LS-CoSL did not deal with this scenario in its report.
There is an urgent need to resolve this constitutional conundrum. My recommendation is as follows:
1) State Legislatures must be given the power to scrutinise, amend or annul the RTI Rules notified by the State Governments;
2) Parliament must exercise scrutiny of the manner in which competent authorities such as the Heads of State Legislatures and the High Courts exercise their rule making powers under the RTI Act through its Committees on Subordinate Legislation.
I believe Parliament being the law-making body that vested these competent authorities with the power of delegated legislation under the RTI Act is competent to examine them against the letter and spirit of the parent law. Rule 317 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (14th Edn., 2010) describes the power of the House to vet rules made by any authority as follows:
“317. There shall be a Committee on Subordinate Legislation to scrutinize and report to the House whether the powers to make regulations, rules, subrules, bye-laws etc., conferred by the Constitution or delegated by Parliament are being properly exercised within such delegation.”
Similarly Rule 204 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) (7th edn., 2010) also vests the power to examine the exercise of delegated legislation by any authority.
“There shall be a Committee on Subordinate Legislation to scrutinize and report to the Council whether the powers to make rules, regulations, bye-laws, schemes or other statutory instruments conferred by the Constitution or delegated by Parliament have been properly exercised within such conferment or delegation, as the case may be.”
The aforementioned Rules make it clear that both Houses of Parliament can examine the RTI Rules notified by all State Legislatures and Chief Justices of High Courts. This will not affect the independence of the State Legislatures or the judiciary as the parliamentary committees on subordinate legislation will only examine whether the powers granted by Parliament to the competent authorities for implementing RTI in their jurisdiction are being exercised within stipulated limits or if there is overreach. However due to the absence of a specific mention in the RTI Act of the laying requirement for these Rules they have escaped mandatory scrutiny by the parliamentary Committees on Subordinate Legislation. There is an urgent need to remedy this problem.
As the administrative Department for the RTI Act, your Department has an obligation to initiate action towards bringing RTI Rules notified by State Governments under the effective scrutiny of the respective State Legislatures. Similarly your Department has an obligation to initiate action to bring the RTI Rules framed by all High Courts to the attention of the twin parliamentary committees on subordinate legislation. I request you to initiate action in this regard immediately. If you wish to discuss this matter further please feel free to call me at 011-43180215; 9871050555 or email me at venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org.

Comments

TRENDING

Defeat of martial law: Has the decisive moment for change come in South Korea?

By Steven Lee  Late at night on December 3, soldiers stormed into South Korea’s National Assembly in armored vehicles and combat helicopters. Assembly staff desperately blocked their assault with fire extinguishers and barricades. South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol had just declared martial law to “ eliminate ‘anti-state’ forces .”

EVMs: Govt must prove beyond reasonable doubt it's upholding mandate for free, fair polls

By Jerald D’souza  With the growth of India’s population, concerns about electoral fraud associated with ballot papers, also began to escalate. In 1989, the People’s Representation Act was amended to enable EVMs to prevent electoral fraud. In 1998, EVMs made their debut during legislative assembly elections and for the first time for general elections in 2004. However, criticisms against the EVMs and questions about their integrity have been raised by political parties, civil society and the general population. On 2 February 2024, there was a noteworthy demonstration of dissent where numerous individuals, including Ambedkarite advocates, legal professionals, and other members of civil society  convened at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar demanding the prohibition of EVMs. In 2024, the Supreme court had slapped down a petition to return to paper ballots on the basis that machines give “absolutely accurate results” unless human bias maligns them. The court stated that it was open to testi...

70,000 migrants, sold on Canadian dream, face uncertain future: Canada reinvents the xenophobic wheel

By Saurav Sarkar*  Bikram Singh is running out of time on his post-study work visa in Canada. Singh is one of about 70,000 migrants who were sold on the Canadian dream of eventually making the country their home but now face an uncertain future with their work permits set to expire by December 2024. They came from places like India, China, and the Philippines, and sold their land and belongings in their home countries, took out loans, or made other enormous commitments to get themselves to Canada.

This Indian British Marxist blamed USSR's collapse in 1991 on Khrushchev's 'revisionism'

By Harsh Thakor*  Harpal Singh Brar, British Indian Marxist scholar and communist leader, has passed away in Chandigarh. He was 85. He was a lifelong supporter of socialism, Marxism, and the working class. He will be remembered among British Communists.

Chalapathi's death in encounter suggests Maoists' inability to establish broader mass support

By Harsh Thakor* The Maoist movement experienced a significant loss during the Ramagudem encounter on January 21, with the death of Chalapathi (Pratap), a Central Committee member of the CPI (Maoist). His death, along with 15 others, marks a major setback for the movement. Reports suggest that his location was revealed to security forces through a selfie with his wife.

Operation Kagar represents Indian state's intensified attempt to extinguish Maoism: Resistance continues

By Harsh Thakor Operation Kagar represents the Indian state's intensified attempt to extinguish Maoism, which claims to embody the struggles and aspirations of Adivasis. Criminalized by the state, the Maoists have been portrayed as a threat, with Operation Kagar deploying strategies that jeopardize their activities. This operation weaves together economic, cultural, and political motives, allegedly with drone attacks on Adivasi homes.

Chhattisgarh's CFR management plan implementation under PM-DA JGUA: A promising start

By Dr. Manohar Chauhan*  Chhattisgarh is poised to benefit significantly from the Pradhan Mantri Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Uttkarsh Abhiyan (PM-DA JGUA) Mission, launched by the Prime Minister on October 2, 2024.  This mission aims to support 400 gram sabhas in the state in developing and implementing Community Forest Resource (CFR) Management Plans.

A groundbreaking non-violent approach: Maharishi’s invincible defense technology

By MajGen (R) Kulwant Singh, Col (R) SP Bakshi, Col (R) Jitendra Jung Karki, LtCol (R) Gunter Chassé & Dr David Leffler*  In today’s turbulent world, achieving lasting peace and ensuring national security are more urgent than ever. Traditional defense methods focus on advanced weapons, military strategies, and tactics, but a groundbreaking approach offers a new non-violent and holistic solution: Maharishi’s Invincible Defense Technology (IDT). 

Why do we mostly resist and refrain from communicating on sanitation topic?

By Nikhil Kumar, Mansee Bal Bhargava* According to UN SDG Progress report (2022), at the present moment no targets for SDG 6 are expected to be met by 2030. In 2022, 2.2 billion people had no access to safe drinking water and 3.5 million lacked safe sanitation. Approximately 50% of the world’s population was reported to have been under resourced in enough water for part of the year and a quarter of that population was living under “extremely high” water stress. Add to it, droughts have affected over 1.4 billion people between 2002 and 2021.

CCG raises concerns over Indian State of Forest Report 2023 in open letter to environment minister

By A Representative  The Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), a collective of former civil servants, has expressed serious concerns over the Indian State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023 in an open letter to the Union Minister for Environment, Forests & Climate Change. The group has criticized the report's delayed release, flawed methodology, and misleading claims regarding the state of India's forests.