Arunachal Pradesh Issues the First Arrest Warrant
New Delhi: Setting an example for others, the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission – the RTI Awards 2009 winner in the Best Information Commission Category – issued the first arrest warrant against an erring Public Information Officer (PIO). This is one of the best practices followed by the state information commission that led to their winning the most coveted award.
In a case (APIC No. 42/2009, Complainant: Tago Pai Camdir), State Information Commissioner Toko Anil, issued a bailable arrest warrant against Jomnya Siram, APIO, Art and Culture, Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh, for not attending his court and reporting compliance of his interim order. The commissioner had passed an interim order asking the respondents to provide information to the complainant on July 13, 2009. Moreover, he had also asked both the parties to appear before him on July 31, 2009 to report compliance. However, J Siram not only failed to appear before the court but also did not inform the court about the action taken on the order.
The complainant, Tago Pai Camdir, who was present at the court on the given date, informed the commissioner that he had not received any information despite a favorable order. This irked the Information Commissioner who noted, “…the Commission has left with no other option but to invoke under Order-XVI, Rule 10 (3) CPC-1098 r/w section 18(3) of RTI Act 2005 and in the process arrest warrant shall be issued against Sri J Siram, APIO Director of Art & Culture department who personally assured the Commission to comply the order of the Commission passed dated 13th July, 2009.”
December 6th, 2009 at 8:05 am
अरुणांचल प्रदेश के सूचना आयुक्त द्वारा उठाया गया यह एक अत्यंत सराहनीय कदम है. अन्य राज्यों के सूचना आयुक्तों को भी इससे सीख लेनी चाहिए की वे यहाँ पर आम जनता व् नागरिको की सहायता के नियुक्त किये गए हैं न के भष्ट जन सूचना अधिकारीयों के बचाव के लिए . मेरी और से उनको हार्दिक शुभकामनायें और इस मौलिक प्रयास के लिए साधुवाद. Keep it up..
December 6th, 2009 at 9:23 am
It’s very heartening for all the RTI activists that warrants of arrest have been issued by this particular Information Commissioner for Non-Compliance of orders of commission for appearance/providing the information. This action of IC should be taken and accepted as precedence for cracking a whip against all rogue PIO’s who have scant regards for authority of State Information Commissions as well as CIC. Now it is the right time for other IC’s to follow this pursuit and take the similar actions against all the PIO’s who act irresponsibly to satisfy their whim of being Government Officials in Power and act in similar irresponsible way to harass the RTI applicants by either delaying the provision of information or denying it to shield the corruption from being exposed and also acting as deterrents to achieving goal towards transparency process by the way of implementation of RTI act.
Ajay Kumar
General Secretary, Public Grievance & Welfare Society (Regd.)
Delhi
E-Mail:publicgrievance@rediffmail.com
December 8th, 2009 at 6:29 am
I want to know the process by which CIC can award some sort of punishment to an RTI applicant, who is misusing it against individuals belonging to minority community. This RTI applicant is using RTI an instrument of defamation to tarnish the image of individuals. By this way he is abusing the RTI Act itself.
For example Right to Vote is a bigger fundamental right given to citizens of india but if a citizen cause abuse to the process of voting, it can be withdrawn. For example Shiv Sena Supremo Shri Bala Saheb Thakerey was disenfranchised and his right to vote was revoked for 8 years as a punishment by The Election Commission of India for the abuse he caused to the process of voting and election.
In the same way CIC and State ICs should be empowered to withdraw any citizen’s right to information if he abuses the process of RTI.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Dear Mr Arwind
HATS OFF to you for successfully completing survey and creating awareness about RTI all over India.
The conduct of AWARD GIVING CEREMONY in spite of boycott by CIC is a proof that you are different than most of us.
Kindly convey my heart felt thanks to S/Shri R S Sharma, Narayan Murthy, Ratan Tata, P Roy etc. etc. for their valuable contribution and efforts to make India CORRUPTION FREE.
Wishing you and your team ALL THE BEST in your adventures,
M K TYAGI 09-12-2009
December 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
This is a classical example of the land mark orders and it should become an eye opening matter to every CPIO/Appellate
Authority throughout the country The similar case of mine as well the authorities concerned are not responding for supply of information within thirty days. The higher authorities at the fag end of expirt of time limit the higher authorities are simply endorsing original RTI Applications to their respective authoritites
it is requested to kindly indicate whether another thirty days are required for preferring first appeal or a complaint may be filed before STATE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE
S VISWANATHA RAO
HYDERABAD
December 14th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Read the above the comments of Mr. Mohhammad Faisal which are pertaining to searching/ demanding provisions under RTI Act for ‘imposing penalty on RTI Applicant’, for defamation caused to the PIOs. In my view, if there will be any provision under RTI Act, our 99.9% PIOs will take advantage/shadow of it, while denying the rightful information to the applicants.
Any RTI applicant generally seek some sort of information/clarification on any issue(s) which he like to prefer. If it is not falling under the purview of RTI Act, PIO has full power/liberty to deny the said information. Why the PIO should not excercise his these powers as stipulated under RTI Act, rather than demanding penalty/punishment on RTI applicant? The contents of this para are highly objectionable and ridiculous in view of larger public interest.
Moreover, this space has been specifically earmarked to offer comments on ‘issuance of first warrant in a RTI matter by the Arunanchal Pradesh Information Commission’, which Mr. Faisal did not read, I think so .
December 18th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Dear Shri Chopra
I want to clarify your misconceptions
1. I am not searching/demanding penalty for defamation caused to PIO. Instead I am advocating that CIC or State ICs should be empowered to penalise the RTI applicants, who do mischief/cause defamation to individuals due to their motivated mindset through RTI. PIO has no role in it at all.
2. I am simply a citizen of india whose privacy and right to life (which is provided under Article 21) is constantly being encroached by using this RTI Act.
3. In this case the Right to Information of applicant who is causing abuse to the Act itself by misusing it against individuals should be withdrawn and this power should be vested with CIC or state IC, just like in the case of Election Commission of India who has power to withdraw the Right to Vote in case of its abuse by any citizen.
4. Today’s CIC or state IC entertain complaints/appeal in a single direction only that is not providing for information, which is inimical to the principle of jurisprudence. The Commission who is in the role of judge should have powers to listen all cases relating to right to information or harm caused to any citizen by utilizing the provided information by the information seeker.
5. In such cases Commissions should also issue warrants against information seekers who are abusing this very democratic act. This will inculcate a sense of responsibility while utilizing this sacred act.
M. Faisal
9311209821
December 18th, 2009 at 7:58 am
In reciprocal of the aforesaid reply of Mr. Faisal, I would like to suggest Mr. Faisal to lodge an FIR against the concerned culprit person(s)(if he can finally identify him ) at their nearest Police Station with proper evidences, for such an indulgence/defamation in/of their privacy. Right to Information is not a culprit,here, I would like to add.
Here you are trying to blame/give punishment to the ‘tyre’ of a non-living ‘Motor Car’ instead of its living Driver, who done its misuse.
Further,kindly do not weight all the RTI Applicants in same basket as well as solely blame Right to Information Act for such minor inconveniences caused .RTI is exclusively a public friendly act being enacted by the Parliament for the benefit of masses who had very poor access in Govt. Offices earlier.
Moreover, kindly try to be honest here, as you are not making these comments as a Citizen of India first, but are making such kind of demand of punishment on RTI Applicants as a PIO of an organisation , which one can easily be assessed by any one.
Kindly think over it
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Dear Mr Arwind
2nd Appeal-S K Nagarwal Vs Northeast Frontier Railway, Guwahati-11 was to be heard by Mr M M Ansari on 07-12-2009. Due to bitter experience Mr Nagarwal had requested for VIDEO RECORDING in case ONLY Mr Ansari was to hear the appeal. Since no communication was received Mr Nagarwal decided to take me as INDEPENDENT OBSERVER. When Mr Ansari read my name on the Attendence Sheet, he recused himself.
This appeal(CIC/SG/C/2009/000554-AD)was therefore heard Yesterday by Mrs A.Dixit and I alongwith INDEPENDENT OBSERVER Mrs Saroj Tyagi represented Mr Nagarwal. She has issued SHOW CAUSE NOTICE to CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed on him.
M K TYAGI 23-12-2009
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 am
Dear Shri Chopra
Thank you for the candid admission that yes RTI can be used to do heinous crimes by criminals as you gave example of Tyres of Motor Car and its living driver.
Morover in my view a person who do crime through RTI is using it like a licensed weapon and his licence to have that weapon must be cancelled or the driving license of that living driver must be cancelled and this power to cancel these licenses should be vested with CIC or state ICs respectively.
In this world no judicial or quasi-judicial authority is empowered to listen single side cases only. Today even if a person files frivolous PIL, the High Courts and Supreme court fines them.
Similarly the Right to information suspension/revocation process must be spelt out in proposed RTI (Amendment) Act.