Mumbai
Mirror: Mumbai: Sunday, 26 October 2014.
Second punch:
Govt issues circular telling officials to hold back any files that they think
are not in public interest.
Outraged
Right to Information (RTI) activists have railed at two government
notifications, issued in the last two weeks, which they say seek to dilute the
efficacy of the RTI Act. Some advocates of transparency and the regime of
accountability have termed the orders "illegal" and have written
letters of protest to the Governor of Maharashtra and the state Information
commissioner.
One of the
circulars, issued in the last week of September, exempts the state
Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) from the purview of RTI queries while the other,
issued on October 17, constrains all government departments from releasing any
information deemed "not in public interest".
The first
notification was issued by the General Administration Department of the
Maharashtra government a few days before the model code of conduct came into
force, prior to the state assembly elections. This order includes the ACB under
Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act, which states that nothing contained in the
statute shall apply to intelligence and security organisations. Activists said
the logic that animates this decision eludes them, considering the bureau
investigates cases of graft and is not tasked with matters concerning
intelligence or security. "In my view, the order exempting ACB from RTI is
illegal," said former Information Commissioner of the Central Information
Commissioner's office and prominent RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi. "Section
24 (4) of the RTI Act deals with intelligence and security organisations. But
there is no question of putting ACB into that category. I have challenged the
order and written to the Maharashtra information commissioner."
RTI activist
Anil Galgali said considering the number of corruption inquiries pending
against members of the Nationalist Congress Party, which formed one half of the
coalition that ruled the state till the elections were held earlier this month,
the order concerning the ACB would render any independent inquiry impotent.
"This order against the ACB will hide it all," he said.
"The
proposal to remove the ACB from the ambit of RTI came from the ACB and was
ratified by the home department - former home minister R R Patil and former
chief minister Prithviraj Chavan," said additional chief secretary P S
Meena, of the General Administration Department. "We also consulted the
law and judiciary department, which gave an opinion that the ACB can be removed
from the ambit of RTI." According to him, one of the principal reasons for
this is that those accused by the ACB of graft could misuse the act to extract
information about proceedings against them and jeopardise the investigation. "After
consultations, we issued the order last month to put the ACB out of RTI
ambit.'' Meena said.
The second
proclamation issued by the administration of the Governor-ruled state has
directed all departments to withhold any information that does not constitute
"public interest". The order cites a Supreme Court ruling dated
November 3, 2012 stating, "The details called for by the petitioner i.e.
copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and
orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as
defined in clause (J) of section 8(1) of RTI Act. The performance of an
employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the
employee and employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules
which fall under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which
would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual." The order
also refers to a verdict by the Karnataka High Court, delivered on August 31,
2012, which states that if information sought by an applicant falls under the
"personal" category, officers shall not entertain RTI applications
regarding such data. "The circular that quotes the SC and Karnataka HC on
personal information is also not correct," Gandhi said. "The order of
the SC is specific to a case and does not constitute precedent; it can be
followed as law of the land provided it gives reasoning in law and establishes
a legal principle. But this particular SC judgement does not do that. In fact I
have filed a petition in the Bombay High court challenging this aspect,"
Gandhi said.
His fellow
activist, Bhaskar Prabhu of Mahiti Adhikar Manch, agreed. "All of us have
been protesting against it. In fact, we have not just written letters to the
state information commissioner, but also to the Governor of Maharashtra,"
he said.