Times of India: Bengaluru: Wednesday,
July 27, 2016.
Although the
Karnataka State Information Commission has constantly recommended disciplinary
action against public information officers (PIOs) for withholding or denying
information, it has failed to have any impact.
Under the
provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005, the commission is
empowered to impose a fine and recommend action against PIOs. However, the
recommendations can only be implemented by the concerned departments where the
PIOs work.
Disciplinary
action has been recommended against PIOs for citing the third party clause to
withhold information in hundreds of cases. However, the PIOs are paying fines
and reverting to denying information. The failure of the departments to act
against them has made the information commission in the state a toothless body,
besides subverting the RTI Act.
PIOs often
cite the third party clause, stating that the RTI applicant is not concerned
with the information being sought and divulging the same would be a violation
of privacy of the individual, pertaining to whom the information is being
sought.
State
information commissioner L Krishnamurthy had recently asked the public works
department (PWD) to act against an assistant executive engineer in the minor
irrigation department, who had repeatedly failed to furnish information.
"He was with the BBMP earlier and has withheld information in more than 21
cases and paid more than Rs 1 lakh in fines. Being the parent department, PWD
has been asked to take disciplinary action against him," said
Krishnamurthy.
Although
2,000 PIOs were pulled up for withholding information in 2013-14 and Rs 59.95
crore was collected in penalties, the reality remains unchanged on the ground.
"Levying fines hasn't helped. These officials don't see Rs 25,000 as a
huge amount. Some have paid Rs 2-3 lakh in fines, but have failed to mend their
ways. Only strong disciplinary action will serve as a deterrent,"
Krishnamuthy added.
Commission
directs HC SPIO to disclose information sought by applicant
The state
public information officer (SPIO) of the Karnataka high court, who had been
refusing to divulge information being sought by an applicant was recently
directed by the commission to disclose the details being asked for. The SPIO
had withheld the information on the grounds that the applicant was seeking
personal details.
The appellant
had requested for a certified copy of an enquiry report dated March 15, 2014 of
the high court along with the office note and final orders.
When queried
over the reason for denying the requested information, the SPIO said that the
information in the documents sought by the appellant concerned personal
information of an individual other than the applicant.
However, the
appellant pointed out that he had managed to obtain similar information from
the SPIO and deputy registrar of the high court in 2013, under the RTI act.
"I do
not think that the appellant is seeking an officer's personal information and
concerns public activity. I am of the opinion that the information has to be
furnished by the SPIO in the interests of justice and equity," states
Krishnamurthy in his order.
The SPIO has
been directed to provide the information sought by the appellant within 30 days
of the receipt of the information commission's order.
Times View
It is ironic
that public information officers who function as custodians of transparency and
accountability, are today being charged with withholding vital information to
appellants. While the third party rule in the act ensures there are no flagrant
violations of an individual's privacy, the frequency with which officers have
sought recourse to the clause is staggering and bears closer scrutiny. Such
officials are being let off with little more than a slap on the wrist shows
lacunae in RTI Act implementation. Government departments need to scrutinise
cases where information is not being divulged and ensure that officers are
accountable for failing to divulge information.
.JPG)
.JPG)
