Translation of material sought under RTI Act triggers debate in Punjab information commission

Times of India: Chandigarh: Thursday, 27 November 2014.

Can an applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seek translations of government texts in Punjab? The tricky question generated much heat in the Punjab State Information Commission in a recent case last week.

In a case related to land acquisition titled 'Naib Kaur versus Punjab Housing and Urban Development, New Oustee Policy (Policy related to compensation to the individuals)', the applicant sought translations of certain paragraphs of the government order from English to Punjabi, besides wanting to know if the policy applied to her as well.

"It was startling that the said three passages, of which the complainant was seeking Punjabi translation, were of just 150 words and the entire New Oustee policy not more than 1,000 words," said the initial order of the commission passed by state information commissioner Surinder Awasthi.

The case also revealed other startling facts such as the department had no designated public information officer for nearly six months ending March, for which a notice was sent to Venu Prasad, secretary, department of housing and urban development, to clarify as to who had been discharging the duties of PIO during the contentious period.

"The respondent deemed the PIO has stated that the PIO is not legally obliged to get any policy translated into Punjabi, which is the official language of the state. The contention of the deemed PIO is that the Punjabi version of the policy can't be supplied as it is not available. Thus, getting it translated in Punjabi would be creation of information which is not mandated under RTI Act," reads the order.

"The information seeker was not demanding a moon, but a mere translation of three paragraphs and it did not entail a rocket science but required simple translation skill which almost every government officer in Punjab is expected to have," it adds.

However, the full bench of the commission later held a different view and ruled, "The PIO is required to supply the 'material' in the form as held by the public authority and is not required to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him or her."