The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, August 22, 2017.
A voter Vishnu
Dev Bhandari asked for the progress of the works undertaken in Khatauna block
of Madhubani district, Bihar, and under RTI he was asking for the action taken
report. The CPIO and First Appellate Authority did not bother to respond. If not the voter who would ask the
representative or agency that executes the works for which representative has
allocated funds?
If a voter
sought information about his representative in Parliament regarding the
progress of works initiated under his MPLADs, it has to be appreciated as
proper use of RTI. The voter-appellant wanted to know the progress/status of
developments in the Parliamentary constituency of Madhubani under Member of
Parliament Local Area Development scheme (MPLADS) in Khatauna block of
Madhubani district, Bihar. A voter has every right under the RTI to know about
selection of works, progress, incomplete works, the delay, reasons thereof and
possible time of their completion.
It is from
the tax payer’s money that each parliamentarian is getting Rs 5 crore per
annum, besides all his primary and VVIP standard facilities were taken care of.
Each Member of Parliament is privileged to allocate from his Rs 5 crore annual
fund for the developmental activities in his constituency which is called
‘Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).’
The actual
progress on the field could be ascertained by the local authorities like
District Magistrate and his subordinates. Regarding how the works were chosen,
the officers said that it was totally at the discretion of the MP concerned and
no authority could intervene in it.
This
information is partly held by the respondent Ministry, District
Collectors/Magistrates in the Constituency, the MP, his legislature party and
the political party, if they have any guidelines or policy regarding allocation
of funds for the works in the constituencies. All of these authorities have a
duty to answer to the voter-citizen.
There is no
doubt that the Ministry and the District Collectors are public authorities
under the RTI Act and they are supposed to answer the appellant within 30 days.
Voter’s
request for information is not motivated by any personal interest, and he was
not asking any personal information or private information about the MP. He is
not even asking about their assets, or increase during the term or the money he
spent to get elected etc. He was also not raising any political issue.
The
information sought does not fall under any category of exceptions prescribed
under RTI Act. In fact, it was the duty of the Ministry, which is called
“Statistics and Programme Implementation” that means it is supposed to have information
and also supervise the implementation of the programs. The question, questioner
and also questioned authority were proper and
Though
officers or District Magistrates/Collectors of districts concerned can provide
statistical data as available, the real questions regarding criterion etc of
the MP’s decision to allot funds for some works and refusing others remain
unanswered, which could be answered either by MP or his legislature party or
its original political party.
The
Commission directed the CPIO of Ministry of Statistics & Programme
Implementation, and CPIO of Lok Sabha Secretariat to provide a report on
activities on MPLADS in Khatauna block of Madhubani constituency along with
details sought by the appellant, besides placing it in their official website,
before 7th September 2017.
The
Commission directed the CPIO and S K Surwade, Director and HOD, who is
considered as deemed CPIO, to show cause why penalty should not be imposed
against each of them for not responding, which amounts to deemed refusal under
Section 7(2) and will attract Section 20 of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority is also
directed to explain why disciplinary action should not be recommended against
him for not taking up the first appeal at all, which amounts to abdication of
responsibility under RTI Act.
The
Commission directed the PIO/PA or PS of the MP concerned, Honorable Hukumdev
Narayan Yadav, to furnish the details of the works recommended by him, the
criterion of selection or rejection and progress of the work etc. Last date for responses was 7th September,
2017.
Considering
the possibility of policy or guidelines being issued from the Parliamentary
Party of the BJP, in which the MP concerned is the member, invites the
views/contentions of the Government Chief Whip, the Leader, and Deputy Leader
(LS) of BJP, or any other authorised representative as to why the BJP
Parliamentary Party should not be declared as ‘public authority’ under 2(h) of
RTI Act, 2005.
As the BJP
Parliamentary Party is the ruling party of the Government of India, which
proclaimed its commitment to transparency and clean government, the Commission
recommends to voluntarily disclose the criterion for selection of works under
MPLADs along with constitution-wise works list and their progress with regular
updating, on their official website/websites of the party or Legislature Party
or individual MPs, if they have any, to fulfil their democratic obligation to
inform the voters of India, within reasonable time.
In principle,
every legislature/parliamentary party shall be considered as public authority.
Either because of RTI Act, or because of their Constitutional obligation to
provide good governance or because of their oath under the Constitution, every
legislator and their group called “Legislature/Parliamentary Party” or their
“Original Political Party” as defined under the Constitution (Tenth Schedule),
have moral, legal and constitutional obligation to disclose at least the
MPLADs-related information on their own under Section 4(1).
The
Commission recommends every legislator to fulfil this obligation as they have
promised this nation to work as per the Constitution. The Commission would like to remind the
elected legislators the oath they have taken while assuming the office of
membership of legislature. The MPs and if one of the MPs is the Minister, are
under obligation to take following oath as per the Third Schedule of our
Constitution:
Form of oath
of office for a Minister or the Union:-
"I, [the
name], do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, [that I will
uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India,] that I will faithfully and
conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the Union and that I will
do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the
law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will." Form of oath of
secrecy for a Minister for the Union:-
"I, [the
name], do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will not directly or
indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which
shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a
Minister for the Union except as may be required for the due discharge of my
duties as such Minister."
The Ministers
who took oath of secrecy, need not be reminded that they have a duty to reveal
that information that may be required for the due discharge of their duties as
minister. This means the information like progress of works under MPLADs scheme
shall be disclosed as that would be required in due discharge of the duties.
The MPs, MLAs
and MLCs will not take oath of secrecy, and hence bound to give all
information, including that was asked by the appellant in this case. They have
to uphold integrity of India, which cannot be done without integrity of
individual members of legislature, and if the anti-corruption measures
including transparency are not ensured. All of them have duty to faithfully
discharge their duties under the Officer they entered upon.
Apart from
political parties in centre and states, the Commission also invites civil
society including NGOs and individual citizens having concern for democracy and
transparency to express their opinion/contentions or views on the issue of
bringing legislature parties/parliamentary parties under the purview of Right
to Information Act, 2005 to provide people access to information, by email to
madabhushisridhar@gov.in before 8th September, 2017.