74th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra80229286942849 Tamil Nadu2869415762235 Delhi2633410315708 Gujarat19119130111190 Rajasthan100847359218 Uttar Pradesh97335648257 Madhya Pradesh89965878384 West Bengal73032912366 Karnataka4835169357 Bihar4598223329 Andhra Pradesh4250256573 Haryana3597120924 Telangana32901627113 Jammu and Kashmir3142104835 Odisha247814819 Punjab2415204347 Assam19894434 Kerala170071215 Uttarakhand115328610 Jharkhand7642975 Chhatisgarh6781892 Tripura6221730 Himachal Pradesh3691636 Chandigarh3022225 Goa126570 Manipur124110 Puducherry90330 Nagaland8000 Arunachal Pradesh3710 Meghalaya33131 Mizoram1710 Sikkim200
Nation Current Affairs 29 Jul 2019 Effectiveness of RTI ...

Effectiveness of RTI lies with enforcers

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | M T THOMAS
Published Jul 29, 2019, 3:22 am IST
Updated Jul 29, 2019, 3:22 am IST
Centre, States are not following rules in appointment of commissioners.
The SC judgment states: “The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels  should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as afore- recorded.”
 The SC judgment states: “The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as afore- recorded.”

Lot of discussions have been going on about the recent RTI Act Amendment Bill. Since the Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, it has become the law of the land. At this juncture, let us examine how the RTI Act can be utilised even with the recent amendment. There are clear directions in the Supreme Court judgment — Namit  Sharma Vs Union of India SC Judgment No.210/2012 and the review order of the Supreme Court Review Petition (C) No. 2309 of 2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 210 of 2012 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

The SC judgment states: “The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels  should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as afore- recorded.” The panel so prepared by the DoPT or the concerned ministry ought to be placed before the High-powered Committee in terms of Section 12(3), for final recommendation to the President of India. Needless to repeat that    the High-Powered Committee at the Centre and the State levels is expected to adopt a fair and transparent method of recommending  the names for appointment to the competent authority.”

 

Again, the names proposed shall be three times of the existing vacancies. And “The selection process should be commenced at least  three months prior to the occurrence of the vacancy.”

These are the broad guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the above judgment for selection of Central and State Information Commissioners. However, the Central government and none of the State Governments are following these rules. In the case of Kerala, out of the existing five commissioners, all except one are political appointments. Another commissioner’s appointment was not approved by the Governor, because of widespread allegation of various criminal cases against him. A petition challenging the appointment of four ICs is  already pending with the High Court of Kerala.

The State Information Commi-ssion is now functioning with one short of the actual approved number. As on May 31, 2019, 11,388 Appeal petitions  and complaint petitions are pending. Out of the above, 77 cases are related to the year 2012, 456 cases related to the year 2013, 1,178 cases are related to the year 2014, 1,199 cases related to 2015, 1,121 for the year 2016, 2,173 cases for the year 2017 and 2,204 related to the year 2018.

Except the long pending cases, nowadays the appeals are disposed of within one to two years. The Chief Information Commissioner has disposed of 3,069 cases from January 2018 till 31.05.2019. Sri. K.L. Vivekandan IC disposed of 1,607 cases during the period, Sri. Somantha Pillai IC, disposed of 1,833 cases, Smt S. Sreelatha IC cleared 959 cases and Sri. K.V. Sudhakaran IC cleared 954 cases.

Nowadays inordinate delay is observed in issue of orders related to the hearing conducted in respect of certain Information Commissioners.

For example, a hearing (APNo.1644/2018) conducted on 30.01.2019, the order was issued only on 11.06.2019, after four months. The inordinate delay in issue of orders after completion of the hearing, defeats the sanctity of the matter. The Act stipulates that State Public Information Officer should attend the second appeal hearing. But there are cases,  wherein section assistant is permitted to attend the hearing instead of PIO, thereby making a mockery of the Act. In spite of clear violations by the SPIO, some of the information commissioners are reluctant to call for explanations from the delinquent PIOs and in awarding penalty and punishment as per section 20(1) & (2) of the Act.

Online filing of the RTI Application and First Appeal though implemented in various other states, our state has still not implemented it. Only Second Appeal can now be filed with the State Information Commission. A Writ Petition is pending regarding the filing of RTI application in our state. The overall performance of the State Information Commission is to be improved.

So, even if the period of the Information Commissioners are reduced from the existing five year tenure to lesser period and the salary also reduced, as most of the incumbents are ineligible persons, all concerned should ensure that the existing selection process is meticulously followed and wherever deviations are noticed, even court intervention to be resorted to, so that, only most eligible persons are selected for the relevant posts.

Removal of the information commissioners at present involves very cumbersome process. In the  case of one of the Kerala State Information Commissioner, who  was suspended  by the Governor for gross misconduct, nothing materialised, and he completed his reaming full tenure under suspension, and retired with full back wages.

The appointments of  all Information Commissioners both in the centre and various States, are done in a  fair and transparent method, the reduction in tenure and salaries may not be a deterrent for those Information Commissioners who are committed  to their work.

The Centre and States should  take urgent steps to fill up all the existing vacancies, so that, the time taken for disposal of the appeals filed, which now varies from nine months to one year in the case of Central Information Commission, and to two or more years in the case of Kerala State Information Commission, can be reduced to a considerable extent.

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT