Bombay high court order a case law for chief's administrative power

The recent Bombay high court order of October 3 clears ambiguity of the administrative power with the state chief information commissioner in the Maharashtra state information commission. The order is also case law of sorts for all future purposes and in case any state decides to have a bench.

Unlike Maharashtra, there is no allocation of division bench. There is only allocation of departments in other state commissions and at the central information commission. Hence, the confusion in state. The HC order while explaining section 15(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 states that the chief has all the powers to ensure the superintendence, direction and management of the commission.

Citing a Supreme Court judgement, the HC order states that on judicial side, the chief justice is the first amongst equals and on the administrative side, the chief justice is the master of the roster. It is, therefore, clear that though the chief justice is the first among equals on judicial side, he is in fact unequal on the administrative side. He alone can decide who should sit in the division bench and who should sit single and what type of work a puisne judge should deal with. Such type of power is certainly conferred on chief information commission alone by section 15 (4) of the Right to Information Act. "The Act states that commission is independent and no one can direct any one to it," said Ratnakar Gaikwad, chief information commissioner whose transfers led to the case being filed.

"According to me there was no lack of clarity in the what the Act said. In fact commissioners are not exercising them," said Shailesh Gandhi, former central information commissioner. "It is good that the order is passed. But one risk that arises due to this order is that it could be misused by the chief in future," said Vijay Kumbhar, the activist who filed the public interest litigation.