The submission was made before the CIC by Public Information Officer (PIO)of the High Court, Imran Hafiz, while contesting the jurisdiction of the transparency panel over it. The Commission, however, rejected the argument put forth by the High Court.
In its submission dated August 30, 2010, the High Court, quoting the RTI Act, said to qualify as the "appropriate government exercising jurisdiction over a public authority (the High Court in this case), this must be a public authority which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds directly or indirectly by (i) Central Government (ii) State Government."
"He (PIO) submitted the High Court of Calcutta was not constituted by the Central Government or even under the Constitution of India but by Her Majesty the Queen of England under Letters Patent dating from the time of Queen Victoria," the then Chief Information Commissioner, Wajahat Habibullah, quoted the letter sent by Calcutta High Court PIO in his order.
"Under Section 44, the powers of such legislation are preserved and therefore, cannot be deemed to have been transcended by the power of Government of India.
"He (PIO) went on to submit that as per Article 246 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the lawmaking powers of Parliament, the High Court is not under the control of President of India or the Government of India," order of the CIC said.
The PIO, however, agreed that the salary of Justices which is the bulk of the finance of High Court, is borne from the Consolidated fund of India and the staff of the High Court is "indeed" financed by the state government.
Rejecting the argument, Habibullah said, "The reading of the Constitutional Provisions and the Statutory Provisions leads that the Central Information Commission will have jurisdiction over the High Courts for the purposes of Right to Information Act."
"Although Imran Hafiz has ably contended that it will not be Government of India or the Union or indeed Constitution of India which established or constituted Calcutta High Court, quite clearly in the context of the present when so called Majesties have ceased to exist and have been succeeded within India or from outside by the Sovereign Democratic Republic of India of which the Head of State is the President of Union of India, any claim of any public authority in India to have established by authority other than those mentioned under the RTI cannot be accepted," he said.