The Wire: New Delhi: Tuesday, September 26, 2017.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) has called into question the conduct of the chief
public information officer (CPIO) and of a consultant and an adviser at the
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), for denying
information to an appellant, Ajit Kumar Singh, about the the number of
complaints received by the panel, the decisions in the cases where the accused
were found guilty and the relief that was granted to them.
While the
NCPCR’s mandate is to ensure that all laws, policies, programmes and
administrative mechanisms are in consonance with the child rights perspective
as enshrined in the constitution of India and the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child, the denial of information by the commission has raised
doubts about the transparency of the organisation.
The CPIO, G.
Suresh, in his reply on May 17, stated that the “information sought by the
appellant was not disclosable as per exemption under section 8(1)(j) of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act”.
However, the central information commissioner, M. Sridhar Acharyulu,
held, “The NCPCR uses a privacy exception to refuse entire information en bloc.
No effort is done to provide information which could have been disclosed on
their own under Section 4(1)(b)”. The CIC further clarified that “except the
name of the child, nothing could be denied”.
Consultant,
adviser misguiding NCPCR
Acharyulu
also raised questions about the conduct of the the adviser, Rakesh Bhartiya, and
consultant, Raman Gaur, appointed by the NCPCR. He said that both Bhartiya and
Gaur misguided the commission to deny the information.
“These two
experienced seniors did not even provide reasons to justify the denial. They
failed to perform their duty to separate information that can be given from the
information that cannot be given, as prescribed under Section 10(1) of the RTI
Act. They do not know that Section 10 provides for severability,” the interim
order of the CIC said.
Stating that
the CPIO, adviser and consultant had not only refused to divulge information
“without forwarding any justification”, Acharyulu said they had also “bluntly
rejected the entire information, abusing section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
“It is most
unfortunate that the consultant and advisor have guided the CPIO and the public
authority to breach the RTI Act,” he added.
Questions
pertained to core functioning of the NCPCR
Going into
the merits of the plea, the CIC said, “When the appellant was not seeking names
and personal information and wanted information about the number of cases left
out without any action, or action taken and pending before the commission for
years, public authority cannot invoke Section 8(1)(j) at all.”
He said the
question raised by the appellant about the action taken by the NCPCR on
four-year-old complaints was in “public interest” and related to its “core
function”.
The CIC also
directed the NCPCR to provide, within 15 days, information regarding cases
pending for over two years pertaining to the Bihar circle and the details of
disposal of cases where the accused were found guilty, after removing names and
personal details of children.
It also
directed the CPIO, the adviser and the senior consultant, who appeared in the
matter as “deemed PIOs”, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be
imposed upon them for illegal obstruction of information.
.JPG)
.JPG)
