First
post: New Delhi: Tuesday, 03 March 2015.
Asking the
Delhi Lieutenant Governor's office to desist from adopting a flip-flop
approach, the CIC has directed it to make clear within 30 days whether it
considers itself a public authority under the Right to Information Act or not.
The case
relates to an RTI applicant seeking to get from the Lt Governor's Office the
communication exchanged with Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Advocate
General and Solicitor General in connection with the Khriki Extension raid
where the then Law Minister Somnath Bharti's conduct came under question.
He had also
sought copies of other communications exchanged between LG and some other
authorities on various issues. In its reply, the office neither provided
information nor did it dispute being a public authority under RTI Act.
The issue
arose before Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu where officials
representing the LG office cited a stay issued by Delhi High Court which was
deciding on whether the office comes under the purview of the law.
"They
(Lt Governor office) never raised the claim that the office of LG was not
public authority under RTI Act, 2005, until recently when they obtained a stay
order from the Delhi High Court," Acharyulu pointed out.
Stating that
LG office was violating the fundamental right to equality given under Article
14 of the Constitution, he said, "Strangely, the office of LG took a
peculiar stand that whenever it is feasible it will conduct itself as a 'public
authority' under the RTI Act to give information, and whenever it is not, it
will raise the claim that it is not a public authority."
Acharyulu
directed LG office to inform and explain their contradictory stand and firm
decision whether it wants to be public authority within 30 days.
"The
people of Delhi have a right to know whether their LG office is public
authority or not... This is needed because it will kick up unnecessary
litigations and increase the pendency on Delhi High Court," he said.
Acharyulu
said the position taken by LG office is not in accordance with the avowed
policy called 'National Litigation Policy' wherein the state is advised to
behave like a responsible litigant and to identify and withdraw unnecessary
litigation.
When asked by
Acharyulu whether LG office will respond to other appeals related to it before
the Commission, officials said in spite of this stand that the matter of it
being public authority under stay, it was ready to furnish information "to
the extent feasible by them".
"But
taking a U-turn to say that they are not public authority is whimsical and arbitrary
intended only to deny information about certain questions and to certain
people.
"For
some RTI applications, citizens will get information about certain questions
and to certain people because office of LG considers itself as public
authority, and some RTI applicant citizens will not get because same office
does not consider it as public authority," he said.
The
Information Commissioner said even as they are producing a copy of the stay
order received from the Delhi High Court, they agreed to comply with the orders
of the CIC and follow RTI Act in half-a-dozen cases.
"I will
give information whenever I like or whomever I like or whenever it is
convenient to me, and if not, not. This is not the law. Parliament passed RTI
law only to avoid this discriminatory attitude of the government offices. They
should not act according to their whims and fancies in sharing information with
public," he said.
The
Commissioner said the office has been responding to RTI requests without
protests so far whereas the office should have chosen to invoke the provisions
of the RTI Act empowering them not to answer and taken the issue to higher
court for clarification.
"By
acquiescence the public authority has conceded that they are public authority.
They cannot approbate or reprobate or blow hot and cold at a same time. It is
against principle of natural justice," he said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
