Times of India: Ahmedabad: Monday, 21 July 2014.
For the past
seven months, the AMC has been stonewalling vigilance department inquiries
about officers in relation to various civic issues. The AMC has been citing
section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Activists are now crying foul, saying that the
AMC has been misinterpreting a recent Supreme Court judgment - over the special
leave petition 27734/12 - by claiming that all such information is considered
'personal'.
"In this
particular case that the AMC refers to, the petitioner under the RTI Act had
sought information on an officer's salary, perks, gifts accepted by the officer,
income tax returns, memos issued during the officer's career, transfers orders
issued, and his property card," says Pankti Jog of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat
Pehel. "It was in this case that the SC had upheld the Central Information
Commission's decision of applying the RTI Act's Section 81 (j). How are
complaints against officers for bad roads, broken civic lines, illegal
construction activities, tree plantation and garbage-lifting scams be treated
as personal information about an officer?"
Jog goes on
to say, "These civic issues affect us all every day. How can these be
treated as personal information?" Activists like Pankaj Bhatt say that in
such cases the citizen must request the appellate authority to consider section
24 of the RTI Act. "This particular section categorically states that in
all issues that involve corruption and allegations of human rights violations,
exemptions can be challenged," says Bhatt.