RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Parliament Privileges
| S.No. | CIC CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
CIC/PAROI/A/2017/172581 (607.33 KB) 
|
14 May, 2019 | S Malleswara Rao Vs. CPIO, Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi Information Sought The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, seeking information on five points pertaining to impeachment motion against Hon’ble Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, High Court of Hyderabad in Dec. 2016, including, inter-alia, (i) total number of members of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) who had signed and moved the impeachment motion along with their names and copies of the duly signed representations, State-wise, and (ii) total number of members of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) who withdrew support to the motion later along with their names and copies of the duly signed representations, State-wise. Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that in order to enable the Parliament or the State Legislature or their individual members to perform their functions effectively and without any impediments or interference from any quarter, certain privileges are conferred upon them under Article 105 of the Constitution which relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and its members (and Article 194 of the Constitution which relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of State Legislatures and their members). According to Sir Thomas Erskine May, “Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively is a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament …….. and by Members of each House of Parliament individually, without which they cannot discharge their functions.” The Commission notes that giving a notice of Motion by any Member in the course of discharge of his Parliamentary duties is covered within the meaning and scope of the term ‘Proceedings in Parliament’. Hence, disclosure of details of members who gave the Motion and some who subsequently withdrew their names under RTI may open the parliamentary conduct of such Members to public scrutiny. Such disclosure may not only indirectly influence the members in discharge of their parliamentary duties but has a tendency to influence their independence in the future performance of their duties, thereby would cause breach of privilege. Therefore, the information sought for vide point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. Hence, an appropriate response has been furnished to the appellant in respect of point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application. The Commission, however, directs the respondent to provide the relevant extract of the Rules/procedure relating to acceptance and withdrawal of motion by MPs as sought vide point no. 5 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission. |
| 2 |
CIC/RK/C/2016/000011 (86.35 KB)
|
20 Jul, 2017 | Shri Blair Rodrigues Vs. CPIO, Goa Shipyard Limited, Vasco-De-Gama, Goa-403802 The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Goa Shipyard Limited, Goa seeking information on six points including, inter-alia, (i) copies of various Parliamentary questions received and (ii) copies of replies furnished to these Parliamentary questions. The Commission, observed that information sought has been incorrectly denied by invoking exemptions under Sections 8(1)(c), 8(1)(i) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the information sought in the RTI application, pertains to Parliamentary questions and their replies, and this cannot be said to be exempted under the RTI Act as once the questions are laid on the table of the Parliament, the same can be published and therefore, are available in public domain. The Commission further observed that information pertaining to grievance redressal, number of grievances received and copy of the promotion letter issued does not relate to personal information of a third party. Hence, the same has been incorrectly denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. |
| 3 |
CIC/SM/A/2012/000026 CIC/SM/A/2012/000027 (123.56 KB)
|
20 Feb, 2012 | Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal Vs. CPIO, The Lok Sabha Secretariat The information sought related to the appointment of the Lok Sabha Secretary General, including the correspondence and rules in this regard, and the communication between the Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha (henceforth Leader of the Opposition) and the Speaker. CIC held that, the applicant can inspect the correspondence which does not attract section 8 (1) (c) of the Act provided the appellant identifies specific set of document's. |
Total Case uploaded: 3