Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently addressed the issue of the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) jurisdiction regarding the utilization of funds under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). Justice Subramonium Prasad expunged certain observations made by the CIC, asserting that it exceeded its authority in commenting on MPLADS fund utilization in response to an RTI application filed by Ram Gopal Dixit. The court’s decision came in response to a plea filed by the Union of India through the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation challenging the CIC’s orders.

Ram Gopal Dixit filed an RTI application seeking information about the utilization of MPLADS funds by then-MP Rajesh Diwakar from Hathras Constituency, along with details of works recommended and executed in the North Eastern Railway. The CIC’s response to this application, including comments on MPLADS fund utilization, was challenged by the Central Government, arguing that such commentary fell outside the purview of the CIC’s jurisdiction.

Arguments Presented:

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Sharma, contended that the CIC had overstepped its jurisdiction by commenting on the actions of Members of Parliament in spending MPLADS funds. It was argued that the CIC should have confined itself to addressing the specific questions raised in the RTI application and any related aspects.

Counsel for Ram Gopal Dixit, Mr. Lalit Bhardwaj and Mr. Jatin Anand Dwivedi, defended the CIC’s actions, highlighting the importance of transparency in public spending, particularly concerning MPLADS funds. They argued that the CIC’s comments were within its authority under the RTI Act, aimed at ensuring accountability and proper utilization of public funds.

Court’s Decision:

Justice Subramonium Prasad ruled in favor of the Union of India, holding that the CIC had no jurisdiction to comment on the utilization of MPLADS funds by Members of Parliament. The court expunged the observations made by the CIC in this regard, emphasizing that its role was limited to ensuring access to information under the control of public authorities, as per the RTI Act.

However, the court upheld the portion of the CIC’s order directing the public authority to publish details of MPLADS fund allocation and utilization, as this fell within its statutory mandate to promote transparency and accountability.