Moneylife:
New Delhi: Saturday, 27 September 2014.
The HC
dismissed the CPIO's petition at the admission stage itself against CIC's
decision to impose a penalty of Rs25,000. This ruling is important because
several times, public authorities have been found approaching courts at the
drop of hat and at the cost of the tax payer.
In a landmark
decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Central Public
Information Officer (CPIO) of the Railway Board against the decision of Central
Information Commission (CIC) to impose maximum penalty of Rs25,000. The verdict
is laudable, because the Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage
itself.
An official
handling Right to Information (RTI) application cannot 'escape' his
responsibility of answering queries by simply forwarding the application to
other officials, the High Court ruled while upholding the penalty imposed by
the CIC.
I had filed
an appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, before the CIC after the
CPIO of Railway Board repeatedly denied providing information. The Commission
held multiple hearings and in an exhaustive, reasoned order, directed the CPIO
to provide information as well as imposed penalty on him on 11 March, 2013. The
CPIO, knowing very well that there is no provision in RTI Act, 2005 to review
order, approached the CIC to review its own order. The review was denied by CIC
vide its letter dated 11 April 2014.
The CPIO of Railway Board then approached
Delhi High Court, which upheld the decision of CIC on 12 September 2014. Few
important legal points are settled by this decision of Delhi High Court:
a)
CIC
does not have powers to review its own decisions.
b)
Section
6(3) of the RTI Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is
only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments or
offices.
Forwarding
an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the
same as a Public Information Officer (PIO) of a public authority arranging or
sourcing information from within its own organisation. The PIO cannot escape
his responsibility to provide information by simply stating that the queries
were forwarded to other officials.
c)
It
is not necessary that the penalty be imposed by the CIC only while considering
an appeal; penalty can also be imposed by the CIC if on inquiry made pursuant
to a complaint, it is found that a CPIO has not furnished the information
within stipulated time or has knowingly given incorrect or incomplete
information.
According to
the section 6(3) of RTI Act, if a CPIO receives an application, the subject
matter of which is more closely related to another public authority, he must
transfer the application or the portion of it to the concerned authority within
five days of receiving the application.
However, when
the matter is concerning their own public authority, CPIOs can seek help of
fellow officers under section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The law mandates the
officer, whose assistance has been sought by the CPIO, to render all the
assistance.
It is
unfortunate that public authorities are openly flouting the decisions of
Central Information Commission and State Information or approaching the courts
at drop of hat at the cost of tax payer. It has been revealed through RTI that
some public authorities have up to Rs5 lakh per hearing to some counsels in RTI
matters.