Moot preposition
sushant
(Querist) 03 September 2015
This query is : Resolved
Need Help on following case preposition
Disclaimer: All the names used and events described in this proposition are fictitious. Resemblance of any kind and magnitude to any name, person, organization or event whatsoever is purely co-incidental. This is a fictitious problem/case with the under-given fact matrix. The counsels are expected to operate within the four walls of the facts and issues raised herein.
Facts of the case are as follows:
Republic of Domalia is in its nascent stage, as it got independence from the Mandica on 15th September, 2003. Domalia was a colony for about 150 years and after getting independence it has become a country, which is wedded to core values of democracy, free and fair elections, transparency, accountability and freedom of religion. Republic of Domalia has its independent and autonomous Election Commission. Its Judiciary is also given the right to act independent of executive and given the power of judicial review. Domalia is a Union of States.
The following developments took place in the republic of Domalia, which resulted into a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of Domalia:
1. That Parliament of Domalia enacted the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity sake hereinafter referred to as RTI, Act), where every citizen was provided the right to seek information from various institutions/instrumentalities of the State of Domalia.
2. That all the three organs of the State were obligated to provide information to the citizens, if asked under application under RTI, Act.
3. That the purpose of the RTI, Act was to bring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the State apparatus.
4. That in Section 2(h) of RTI, Act the word PUBLIC AUTHORITY is defined. The Public authorities are bodies, which are obligated to provide information to the citizens. These public authorities were mandated to appoint Public Information Officers (in short PIOs) to give the information.
5. That on 1st July, 2007, Mr. Virendra Madan, Director of Public Interest Litigation Foundation, an NGO registered under the Societies Registration Act, filed an RTI application in the registry of the Supreme Court of Domalia requesting the information from the Apex Court about how many judges of the Supreme Court have submitted the details of financial assets required under the Supreme Court Resolution of 1997.
6. That the Supreme Court Resolution mandated the judges of the apex court to submit their details of the financial assets to the Chief Justice of Domalia.
7. That on 20th July, 2007, the PIO of the Supreme Court rejected the RTI application citing that Supreme Court of Domalia is not public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI, Act.
8. That Mr. Madan filed the first appeal with the First Appellate Authority in the Supreme Court. The First Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal citing the same reasons as given by the PIO.
9. That Mr. Madan approached the Central Information Commission (in short CIC) constituted under Section 12 of the RTI, Act in the second appeal provided under Section 19 of the Act on 10th August, 2007.
10. That the CIC issued notice to registry of the Supreme Court of Domalia on 18th August, 2007. The matter was heard for almost two months by the full bench of the Central Information Commission.
11. That on 30th September, 2007, the CIC decided that Supreme Court is covered under Section 2(h) of RTI, Act and it is a public authority and hence under obligation to answer the information requested by the applicant.
12. That the Registrar of Supreme Court, went to High Court of Capeh, one of the provinces of the Republic of Domalia, on 15th November, 2007 against the decision of CIC.
13. That the Supreme Court of Domalia through its Registrar pleaded in the court that office of the Chief Justice is not covered by RTI, Act and hence Chief Justice of Domalia is not obliged under the Act to disclose the requested information.
14. That the Supreme Court through its Registrar also pleaded in the High Court that Chief Justice of Domalia deals with many sensitive and secret communications from its judges, which need not be disclosed under the Act.
15. That the Supreme Court through its registrar also contended that Central Information Commission is not authorized to issue any direction as it is the interference in the exercise of its judicial powers. The Constitution of Domalia has insulated judiciary from the directions/pressures of administrative and quasi-judicial bodies and hence the decision of the CIC is beyond its jurisdiction.
16. That the High Court through its Division Bench upheld the contention of the CIC and the RTI applicant that Supreme Court is a public authority and rejected the arguments of the registrar of the Supreme Court on 20th October 2015.
17. That the Registrar of the Supreme Court filed Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court assailing the decision of the High Court of Capeh on 16 January, 2016.
18. The Supreme Court of Domalia issued notice to Central Information Commission, Mr. Virendra Madan and Government of Domalia.
Note: The Constitution and other laws of Union of Domalia are same as those of Union of India.
Taking into account various aspects of the case matrix, arguments are to be put forward from the side of both the Petitioner and the Respondents. The arguments can be made on creative lines. Pleas in addition to those set out above will be appreciated.
seshadri dubey
(Expert) 04 September 2015
very interesting sir, trying to follow this discussion.
P. Venu
(Expert) 04 September 2015
This facility is meant for suggestions to solve real-life issues.
Sorry, you are knocking at the wrong door.
seshadri dubey
(Expert) 05 September 2015
respected experts, I am being an expert in this site try to answer several answers put forward by vaious people from India and sometimes from the abroad.
This site not only benifits the people but benifits us also as I always get a chance to get my confusion cleared as the none of us can tell that we know every thing, so I learn every day here.
so I donot find to disarm any person if he is asking an academic question as because it will serve my purpose.
Thanks again to the senior friends and colleagues.
This question is a good one.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 05 September 2015
jt decision of experts: not to reply academic q.
can go to FORUM: LCI
