Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.—This writ petition raises very important and serious issues arising out of the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as RTI Act), i.e. the scope thereof, its implementation, the functioning of the Chief Information Commissioner in due discharge of his duties under the Act, the control of the Governor over his functioning including the power to make reference under Section 17(1) of the RTI Act to the Supreme Court for holding an enquiry and the power to suspend and restrain the Chief Information Commissioner from attending the office during enquiry under Section 17(2) of

the Act.

2. RTI Act is an Act providing for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

3. The purpose and object of the Act is to bring transparency in the Government functioning so as to minimize the corruption and to have check on the arbitrary decisions and actions of the Government and their instrumentalities, who are accountable to the public. In furtherance of the aforesaid object and for removing the mischief, the Act prescribes detailed procedure for seeking information from public authority through the Public Information Officer. The Act provides constitution of a Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, of which the Chief Information Commissioner is the head.

4. The Act consciously prescribes that an information which is not exempted under the provisions of the Act cannot be refused to be supplied nor the person who is seeking the information is required to give reasons for having such information. It also balances and harmonises the conflicting interest with other public interest.

5. For the purpose of the present controversy the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 and sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act are the only provisions on which arguments have been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. Provisions of Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act are being quoted below :

”17(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

(2) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.”

6. The cause of action for the petitioner for filing the present petition is the order passed by the Governor suspending the Chief Information Commissioner (petitioner) vide order dated 9th July, 2008 and also restraining him from coming to the office. The writ petition, though, besides claiming writ of certiorari against the aforesaid order also seeks declaration for declaring the Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act as ultra-vires the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution.

7. The petitioner, Justice M.A. Khan (Retired) was appointed Chief Information Commissioner on 20th March, 2006. He was administered the oath of his office on 22nd March, 2006. Besides other pleas of malice in the aforesaid action, it is the specific allegation that since the