Bangalore
Mirror: Bangalore: Friday, 26 September 2014.
Apex court
had fined state chief information commissioner for 'filing frivolous petition'
and 'wasting public money to satisfy his ego'
State information
commissioners routinely impose fines on errant government officials, but in a
rare case perhaps the first ever the state chief information commissioner
(SCIC) no less was slapped with a fine of Rs 1 lakh by the Supreme Court
"for wasting public money to satisfy his ego". The fine was paid last
year, but in a bizarre turn of events that made a mockery of the SC verdict,
not even one rupee of the fine paid came out of the pocket of the SCIC.
After a
series of RTI queries that went back and forth for six months, activist ARS
Kumar learnt last week that AKM Nayak, the SCIC, had paid the fine using funds
that belonged to the state government. It amounted to a case of the government
paying the government!
The case goes
back to 2007-2008 when one N Anbarasm, a software products provider, filed an
RTI query seeking information on a case from the High Court of Karnataka. Among
several other things, Anbarasm had sought information on the guidelines the HC
followed on writ cases, the procedure the court followed to scrutinise and sort
writ petitions and all the orders of the judge pertaining to two writ petitions
that involved him.
The
information Anbarasm sought can be obtained directly from the HC by paying a
prescribed fee and the HC's public information officer (PIO), replied to his
RTI query asking him to apply by following the proper process. Anbarasm instead
filed a complaint with the Karnataka Information Commission on January 17, 2008
against the HC stating that it refused to furnish certified copies of the
information he had sought.
In May 2008,
the information commission (led by KK Mishra) then passed an order directing
the high court's public information officer (PIO) to furnish the RTI applicant
with a copy of the High Court Act and Rules as well as order sheets pertaining
to the two writ petitions free of cost to the petitioner.
Subsequently,
the high court PIO filed a petition before the HC (Anbarasm as the respondent),
challenging the information commission's order. The HC, after hearing the case,
came down heavily on the information commission and, in a judgment delivered on
August 2009, quashed its order.
In its order,
the court observed, "As it is open for the respondent to obtain certified
copies of order sheet pending as well as the disposed matters, the SCIC
((Mishra) is not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish copies free
of cost. If the order of information commissioner is to be implemented, then it
will lead to illegal demands. The SCIC has passed the order without applying
his mind to the relevant rules of the high court."
Instead of
Anbarasm appealing the order, the SCIC decided to get directly involved and
challenged the HC's order. The SCIC filed a writ appeal in August 2010, almost
a year after the HC single judge's order. The case came before a HC division
bench comprising Justice KLManjunath and Justice V SuriAppaRao. The judges
observed that the appellant (SCIC), was not an aggrieved person and hence
granting leave didn't arise. Citing the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal,
the bench dismissed the SCIC's appeal.
Nayak (who
succeeded Mishra), however, decided to appeal against the verdict in the
Supreme Court.
In January
2013, a SC bench comprising Justice GS Singhvi and Justice HL Gokhale not only
dismissed the SCIC's petition challenging the HC order, but also imposed a
penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the information commissioner (Nayak). The SC order
states: "The entire exercise to undertaken by the commission and the
Karnataka Information Commissioner to challenge the orders of the High Court
shows that the concerned officers have wasted public money to satisfying their
ego."
It is
dismissed the special leave petition, and ordered, "For filing frivolous
petition, the petitioner is saddled with cost of Rs.1."
Strangely,
instead of Nayak paying from his pocket, the fine was paid by the information
commission basically the state government. "It is clear that the Karnataka
Information Commissioner has violated norms," ARS Kumar said. "I will
request the government to recover the money from Nayak's salary."
Prior to
paying up, the state government had sought the opinion of the state advocate
general on the SC's verdict. S Vijay Shankar, the advocate general, stated in
his opinion that the SCIC's move was bad in law and should never occur again.
GOVT WAS
KEPT IN LOOP: NAYAK
When asked
for his reaction AKM Nayak, state chief information commissioner, said,
"The entire thing was handled in consultation with the state government.
The appeal was made solely in the interest of the RTI applicant. As the case in
the HC and the SC was filed by the Information Commission and not an
individual, an individual need not pay the fine. The fine of Rs 1 lakh was paid
only after state government's approval. The government was kept in loop all
along."
IN MY
DEFENCE: STATE CHIEF INFO COMMISSIONER
The order in
case directing the PIO High Court was by the Information Commission and not an
individual, and further the appeal in High Court and Supreme Court was by the
commission, and not an individual.