|
At a recent talk on the working of the Right to Information Act, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah stressed the need to modify the training of government officials that conditioned them not to share government information with the public even though their salaries are being paid by taxpayers
The office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) -- insofar as he presides over the Supreme Court -- does come under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, said Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah. The assertion came during the course of a recent talk he gave on ‘Working of Right to Information Act: Issues and Challenges’ at the Observer Research Foundation in Delhi. “The CIC would soon hear some petitions pending on the issue,” Habibullah added. A law officer for the Supreme Court has argued before a commission bench that judges’ declaration of assets is an in-house voluntary agreement, not accessible to the public under the RTI Act. The commission has reserved its decision on the issue. Habibullah’s remarks may be viewed in the context of a controversy sparked off by CJI K G Balakrishnan’s assertion seven months ago that his office did not come under the RTI Act. A few days later, a parliamentary committee of the Ministry of Law and Justice held that all constitutional authorities, including the CJI, came under the ambit of the RTI Act. Weeks later, the CIC said it would take up the issue in a full bench hearing soon. According to a statement, Habibullah’s speech touched on other aspects of the RTI including his discussions with the Lok Sabha speaker and Rajya Sabha secretariat to improve the flow of information on the functionings of Members of Parliament. He said the purview of the RTI went beyond central and state governments, encompassing any body that receives government funding. This, he said, included such institutions as the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, distcoms, stock exchanges and aided schools. He stressed the need to modify the training of government officials that conditioned them not to share government information with the public even though their salaries are being paid by taxpayers. He dubbed the Official Secrets Act 1923 a “complete anachronism,” saying that the commission had suggested its repeal, to no effect so far. He acknowledged that although some principal information officers were not aware of their roles, there was little doubt that the RTI Act had become a powerful tool even for the weak and illiterate to get information otherwise out of their reach. “This is the Act people can use and will use,” he said, adding that slum-dwellers and poor women had been its largest users. He also highlighted its utility in enforcement of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The CIC stressed the urgency of bringing uniformity and homogeneity in fees under the RTI Act to make it easier and affordable to all citizens. Also, empowering the commission to take contempt action in the event of poor compliance. Habibullah said applicants’ fear of being victimised was a real problem that had to be addressed. Source: UNI, November 26, 2008
PTI, November 26, 2008
IANS, November 26, 2008
|
