|
Alerted by complaints that the State Information Commission (SIC) was not holding public information officers accountable, a group of RTI activists sought to examine the SIC’s records, only to be denied permission by the Maharashtra chief information commissioner in violation of the RTI Act
In a blatant violation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the State Information Commission (SIC) has denied the request of a group of Mumbai citizens who wanted to inspect documents at its office. According to Section 4 of the RTI Act, every public authority has to allow inspection of documents by applicants. On October 24, 2008, six activists including Krishnaraj Rao of Sahasi Padayatri, a citizens’ group, asked to see documents that described the powers and duties of SIC officials. They also wanted to inspect SIC orders passed during the last six months as they had heard many complaints about orders passed by the commission. Maharashtra Chief Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi told the activists that his office was busy and hence he could not allow the inspection to take place. When pressed further, he said they should approach him after Diwali. In response, the activists issued a stern letter emphasising that by not allowing them inspection when requested, the SIC had failed to comply with Section 4 of the RTI Act. The activists were concerned about denial of information to applicants by public information officers (PIOs) who are responsible under the RTI Act for providing information asked for by citizens. The state information commissioner who should penalise PIOs who do not provide information within the stipulated time has not done so in many cases. Nagendra Pande was denied information by the Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) in spite of an SIC order passed in July 2008. He had asked for details regarding the re-development policy in his slum housing society. In a written order, SIC Tiwari directed the PIO to give the information within a month. But as the SIC neither sought a justification for the denial of information under Section 19 (5) nor imposed a penalty under Section 20, the PIO simply ignored the order. Pande has been provided no information to date. According to Sahasi Padayatri activists, such unlawful acts take place in 20-30% of second appeals filed before information commissions nationwide. To make information commissions accountable, activists in Mumbai intend to distribute a checklist outside the information commission that will allow monitoring of quality of implementation of the RTI Act. Source: DNA, October 25, 2008
Press release of Sahasi Padayatri, October 25, 2008
|
