In response to an allegation that the Centre was not filing a reply despite being ordered to do so on December 23, last year, Additional Solicitor General Rajiv Mehra told Justice Rajiv Shakdher that he was ready to argue the case.
"Put up for final disposal on February 8," the court said.
Earlier, it had asked the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to respond to the legal plea of Delhi-based lawyer Shanmuga Patro as to whether the apex transparency body was empowered to prosecute an entity or a person for the offence of perjury or not.
Patro, in his plea, alleged the CIC refused to initiate prosecution for the offence of perjury against Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (RGF), "its aides and affiliates for filing forged and fabricated documents in evidence" before the body.
The CIC had in its December 9 order said "without going into the merits of the case, first of all it becomes necessary for the Commission to see the source of its power to invoke section 340 (perjury) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)..
"Nothing has been stated in the said application (of Patro) about the powers of the Commission but in our opinion, the Commission cannot take cognisance of a complaint under section 340 of CrPC as such explicit powers have not been granted by to the Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission is constrained to decline the requested relief." (More)