Jharkhand commission violates RTI Act
Jharkhand Information Commission’s response to several RTI applications filed with them to know details about their own functioning has been abysmal.
Section 4(1)(b)(iv) of RTI Act says that every public authority shall suo moto publish “the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions” within 120 days of enactment of RTI Act. When asked through an RTI application to provide a copy of these norms, the commission says that such “information is not available”. Does this mean that the commission has not even set out norms for its own functioning or are they hesitating in providing the same?
The commission refuses to provide copies of its annual reports. They do not even disclose whether they have prepared any such reports, which they are obliged to do under section 25 of RTI Act. Such reports have been provided by the commissions of almost all other states.
Did the commission receive any complaint of victimization or threat from any RTI activist? What action did the commission take on such complaints? The Commission refuses to provide this information saying that the information has not been compiled.
The commission even refuses to provide the number of cases which were disposed off without any hearings. The commission does not even have the details of the number of cases in which penalty show cause notices were issued. One wonders that if the commission does not maintain this basic detail, how does it subsequently pursue those cases. It creates an opportunity for the officials to “misplace” the penalty file. What controls does the commissioner have?
Similarly, the commission does not even know in which cases orders of the commission have been reserved. Again, if the staff misplaces such files, how would the commissioner know that he had to pass an order in such case?
The Commission does not know the number of cases in which RTIs have been filed in their own office. Then, how does the commission ensure that replies are given within 30 days. Besides, this information has to go in annual report. How does the commission provide this information in its annual report?
Is it complete anarchy in Jharkhand Information Commission? Naturally, its commissioners do not have the courage to impose penalties or issue arrest warrants against guilty officers from other departments when the commission itself is lacking in transparency.
July 3rd, 2010 at 6:50 am
ORISSA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION VIALOTS THE RTI ACT
GIVE SOME COMMENTS ON RTI RULES OF ORISSA
Dear Sir
Many thanks for seeking suggestion on proposed amendement of Orissa RTI Rules-2005 in website http://www.rtiorissa.gov.in. We came across proceedings of meeting of the Committee constituted to recommend suitable amendments to Orissa RTI Rules , 2005 and Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules,2006 held on 18.11.09 and 27.11.09 from the website of I and PR Department. We are utterly dismayed having seen the recommendation made by the Committee which is devoid of many crucial points that need to be amended in the greater interest of RTI Act. Secondly we also got astonished having seen the recommendation note that Orissa Information Commission would be given power to issue summons to the complainant-citizens for appearing in the hearing. We are of the view that the recommendation is ultravires to Mother Act. Because, as per section 19 (9) and 20(1) of the Act, “ x x x x x x x x x the burden o proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer , as the case may be.” It mean that summon can be issued to the PIO who had failed to comply the Act . It means the PIO against whom the complaint or appeal has been lodged before the Commission will be summoned and questioned and punished by the Commission. The Act has recognized the sovereign power of the citizens i.e., master of the country. So this proposed amendment is against the spirit of the Act and needs to be withdrawn.
Since last four years, we have been demanding for withdrawal of a number of ultravires, absurd provisions in Orissa Rules which need to be amended and replaced with the following recommendations.
1. Withdrawal of Application Form
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, a citizen seeking information is not required to submit his/her application to the Public information Officer in any particular form. But Orissa RTI Rules has prescribed a compulsory 11-point lengthy and complex application Form, without proper fill-up of which one’s request for information shall not be entertained. Moreover, the said Form requires an applicant to disclose several of his/her personal information like identity as a citizen, permanent address, and spouse name, which are as such prohibited from disclosure under Section 6(2) of the Act. The Central Govt. has not prescribed any Application Form as such, and some State Governments who have prescribed Forms have not made them compulsory. The present Form-A of Orissa is simply a burdensome provision for the people of Orissa. The Application Form i.e. Form-A imposed by Govt. of Orissa should therefore be withdrawn, and as in the case of Central Government, the citizens should be allowed to make an application under the Act in the manner they like to.
2. Complete withdrawal of appeal Form and fees
There is no provision in RTI Act to prescribe any Form or Fee for making an appeal, first or second. The Central Govt. and many other State Governments have therefore not prescribed any appeal form or fee. But the Govt. of Orissa, in clear violation of the Act has prescribed both appeal form (Form D for 1st Appeal and Form E for 2nd Appeal) and appeal fees (Rs.20/- for 1st appeal and Rs.25/- for 2nd appeal). Besides the Orissa Rules make it compulsory for such appeal fees to be deposited only through Court Fee Stamps, to procure which is a great difficulty for the common citizens. So the State Government has been urged to abolish both appeal form and appeal fees so imposed.
3. The provision made under the Orissa Rules-2005( vide –Rule 4) that the Applicant has to satisfy the PIO about his/her identity before his/her application is considered, is ultravires the parent Act and needs to be withdrawn. The Section 6 (2) of the RTI Act categorically says that an applicant “ shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those may be necessary for contacting him”.
4. The provision made under Sub-Rule 2 (e) on the “identity” of an applicant defined as “an evidence to show the citizenship like an electoral photo identity card/passport or any other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the person” is ultravires the section 6(2) of the RTI Act for the aforesaid reason and should therefore be struck off.
5. The RTI Act in its section -7(5) has categorically said that no fee shall be charged from the BPL persons for application , cost of providing the information and cost of print or electronic medium. But Orissa Rules have allowed the exemption of application fee only {vide Rule-4(1)} while depriving the BPL families of their lawful right to avail the exemption of other two fees . Since any state Rule can not take away a people’s right which the Central Act has provided , the Orissa Rules as its stands today is not only out and out ultravires but also anti-poor.
6. The Form –C (Intimation of Rejection) as it stands now is not only prohibitive of people’s right to information, but also ultravires the mother law. It needs to be struck off. The section 7(1) of the RTI Act says that a request for information can be rejected for any of reasons specified in Section 8 and 9 only. But the Form-C in its column (i) without specifying the particular reasons under the said sections, mentions just in a blanket, roughshod manner that it comes under exempted category covered under sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Similarly, the Column (iv) spaciously saying that “the information is contained in published material available to the public and quoting it as a ground for rejection carries no meaning for the citizen at all. Again, the column (vi) saying “ The information sought for is prohibited as per section 24(4) of the Act is negatively slanted against the citizen’s quest for information, since the said section permits the information relating to cases of corruption and human rights violation to be disclosed albeit after getting the approval of the Information Commission. So instead of saying just “no”, the said column might say, “Your application has been forwarded to the Information Commission for their opinion “. The Column (vii) saying that “ The information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of any person is absolutely redundant , since the factor is covered under section 8(1j), already taken care of by the column (i) mentioned above. Thus the Form-C is ultravires the mother Act for the reasons already shown above.
We hope , the above-mentioned set of recommendation will help you for amending Orissa RTI Rules-2005 in the greater interest of citizens of the state.
Regards
Shankar panigrahi
Secretary
SATARKA
RADHARANI PARA
BOLANGIR
ORISSA
767001
MOB-9861972607
E-mail-satarka_bgr@rediffmail.com