CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Vs. D.D.A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The autonomy and independence of administrative bodies are fundamental to their ability to perform their designated functions effectively. These institutions are established to carry out specialized tasks that require a level of impartiality and expertise, which can only be achieved if they are free from undue interference. Ensuring their independence is essential for maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the administrative system. Interfering in the functioning of these bodies can be detrimental, as it undermines their ability to operate efficiently and impartially. Such interference can stem from restrictive interpretations of their powers or direct interventions that impede their operational autonomy. Administrative bodies must have the freedom to establish and implement internal procedures and regulations that best suit their unique mandates and operational needs. The principle of noninterference is not merely an administrative convenience but a cornerstone for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that these bodies can serve the public interest effectively. When these institutions are allowed to function without external pressures, they can make decisions based on expertise and objective criteria, which enhances their credibility and public trust.

(2.) The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dtd. 21/5/2010, passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12714 of 2009. The High Court, by the impugned order, quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007[1] framed by the Chief Information Commissioner[2] and held that the CIC has no power to constitute Benches of the Commission. This appeal is confined to the issue of the validity of the Regulations and the powers of the CIC under Sec. 12(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005[3].

(3.) The matter originates from an application filed by one Mr. Sarbjeet Roy, proforma Respondent No.2, under Sec. 18 read with Sec. 19 of the RTI Act, seeking information concerning the ongoing modification of the Master Plan of Delhi for the year 2021[4]. The applicant also sought directions to the Delhi Development Authority[5] to fulfil its obligations under Sec. 4 of the RTI Act, which mandates proactive disclosure of information by public authorities.