Monday, July 21, 2014

'SC order being misinterpreted'

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.