Bangalore Mirror: Bangalore: Saturday,
August 27, 2016.
A full bench
hearing to decide if an RTI activist with 437 cases/appeals before the state
information commission is an abuser or not of the RTI Act has reached a crucial
stage after 25 activists impleaded themselves against the information
commission order, calling it defective and giving way to a turf war between the
commission and the activists.
While a
certain section of activists, who have impleaded against the commission order
have cried foul in the war between the information commission and RTI
activists, another set have also impleaded, calling the commission order right.
The activist
who has triggered the debate and this first-of-its-kind full bench hearing is
Bangalore Raju Venkatesh Prasanna. At the time of appeal, he had 87 of his
appeals before court no 4, and 100 new appeals that were to be taken up, and
250 that were pending before court hall no 5.
On September
16, 2015, information commissioner L Krishna Murthy, hearing a case between
Raju vs BBMP, passed an order proposing a prohibition on Raju after considering
him an abuser of the Act. The commissioner, recommending prohibition on all his
appeals, stated that the same could be placed before a full bench if it had to
be revisited.
Following
this, a full bench has been constituted. As the full bench starts hearing the
case to see if the observations made by a single bench are valid comes
the impleading application row. Interestingly, 25 applications have been filed
in support of Raju, most of them saying that it is one's right to file an RTI
application. A few have claimed that there is no provision in the act to
blacklist an activist.
"This
case is not one to be referred to a full bench. Usually a full bench is
constituted to hear interpretations of the law. When a single bench can't
interpret a provision of the law, a full bench is constituted to interpret it.
It's not the case here. Moreover, one can file any number of RTI applications
or pleas. Blacklisting an individual has no place in the Act. One can't curtail
or stop an individual making further applications. This makes me implead in the
case," Kishore Rao, an activist, told Bangalore Mirror.
The
commission, which issued notices to all 25 applicants, heard the matter last
week. Those both for and against Raju's stand submitted their remarks in
writing. Another activist, Niraj Shantakumar, submitted his objection stating
that till date, nobody has complained regarding pendency and claimed that the
stand educated persons misusing the Act - was not right.
Some are
backing commission
In what's an
interesting debate, three activists have impleaded defending the commission's
order too. While Sanjay Kumar has maintained that filing of many applications
before the commission had caused pendency of existing complaints, Mahesh
Chowdhary, an advocate, stated that the statement of objections by the
appellant sounded like personal vendetta. Another activist, Umapathy, claimed
that a full bench was not vested with the powers to review the decision taken
by the single bench and submitted that those abusing the Act should be
blacklisted. The full bench adjourned the matter to September 15.
"Starting
from the 'abuser' order to the full bench looking into it all are firsts for
the state information commission. Now with several people impleading, it has
made it a curious case. Whatever decision is taken it will have a long-lasting
effect. We will have to wait and watch for the full bench's stand," an
officer told Bangalore Mirror.
Raju,
speaking to BM, reiterated his stand that he had in no way misused the Act and
the commission's order against him would be contested, as filing appeals before
the commission was one's right.