Saturday, July 23, 2016

Information commission, high court at loggerheads

Bangalore Mirror‎‎‎: Bangalore: Saturday, July 23, 2016.
A case pertaining to the provision of information by a former judicial employee has brought two legal institutions of the state - the state information commission (SIC) and High Court of Karnataka - at loggerheads. While the high court's state public information officer (SPIO), who is also a deputy registrar (of the rank of a judge), took a stand not to provide information on an inquiry report, the SIC overruled it and passed an order directing him to provide info within 30 days. SIC passed an order to this extent in two cases.
However, the appellant and the respondent in these cases are the same. While Basavaraj S Munoli, a former CMO with the judicial department, who claims to work as defence assistant in cases, is appellant in both cases, the PIO and deputy registrar, High Court of Karnataka is respondent in the two cases.
THE CASES
On August 13, 2014, Munoli sought information with the SPIO on two subjects. He had sought a certified copy of inquiry report dated 12-3-2014 of the specially empowered authority though DE No: 16/12 (HCE-1046/2012) of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The was a certified copy of inquiry report dated 15-3-2014 of the specially empowered authority in DE No: 07/2012 (HCE-821/2012) of High court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and office note and final orders passed thereon.
As information was not provided, he had then appealed to the information commission on 18 11 2014 in both cases. The commission had issued notices to both the appellant and defendant. The matter had been appealed before the first appellate authority prior to it reaching the info commission. The SPIO had defended his action stating that the applicant's request was not acceded as the information sought by Munoli was related to persons other than him.
However, Munoli had argued that it didn't come under the exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act and that he was a retired CMO (judicial department) and acted as defence assistance on behalf of the official in the said inquiry.
But the first appellate authority had dismissed the plea. Following this, Munoli had filed his appeal before the commission.
The SPIO had maintained the same before the commission and had prayed to reject the application as the disclosure of the information was not associated with any public activity or in public interest and may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual concerned.
SPIO DECISION OVERRULED
However, relying on several orders including SC order in Ramachandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commission and others, besides other instances, the information commission overruled the SPIO decision and the first appellate authority's order, to rule in favour of the appellant.
"I feel the information sought by the appellant is not a personal information of the officer and it directly relates to public activity and in the decision referred above, it is clearly held and given the guidelines how to act in such matters, I feel and I am of the opinion that the required information sought by the appellant/applicant has to be furnished by the respondent No 1 to the appellant/applicant in the interest of the justice and equity:" the commission ruled on July 15. In both cases, the SPIO has been asked to provide information within 30 days.