Saswati Mukherjee, TNN, Jun 6, 2010, 02.17am IST
HYDERABAD: The Right to Information Act is meant to make all government departments accountable but some have found a way to get around it claiming that the government stake in their outfit is far too less for them to field RTI queries. However, a close analysis of these organisations reveals that they actually enjoy a substantial funding from the government and yet prefer to call themselves RTI-proof.
Take for instance, GVK Emergency Medicine and Research Institute (EMRI), which enjoys 100 per cent government stake but has to date not appointed any information officer. “We do not know whether we come under the Act and we do not have a public information officer to deal with queries,’’ said Venkat Chengavalli, CEO, GVK EMRI. So, in February this year, when a citizen filed an application with GVK EMRI, seeking information on a patient who was taken to hospital in a ‘108’ ambulance, he was denied the same. He filed a second appeal at the A P Information Commission recently. However, the commission turned down the application on grounds of it being technically inadmissible.
Analysts say that since GVK EMRI technically falls under the family welfare department, the latter should then be responsible to field such queries.
In the EMRI league falls another notable firm — Deccan Infrastructure and Land Holdings Limited (DILL). Deccan Infrastructure, which has a series of SEZs dotting the state has 57.44 per cent equity share and a 42.56 per cent equity is held by the state government. But the firm refuses to be covered under the RTI Act, maintaining that it is a company established under the Companies Act with “limited public money” inflow.
Recently, an RTI query was filed at the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board seeking information on the extent of land allotted to DILL and the market price at which the land was sold to it. The housing board transferred the appeal to DILL which did not answer it claiming immunity from the Act.
“The very fact that the application was transferred to DILL means it is a public company,” said the appellant, expressing her determination to approach the appellate authority — APHB.
Activists claim such organisations enjoy substantial government funding and are also partially controlled by the state government. “A government stake of 42.5 per cent (in the case of DILL) cannot be considered insignificant,” said Rakesh Reddy Dubbuddu, co-convener of United Forum for RTI Campaign.
Similar is the story of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council and the AP Pharmacy Council, which have not included any information related to its RTI wing on their website. A mandatory rule in the RTI Act is that all public authorities should declare the names of their PIO’s concerned and the appellate authorities on their website to furnish information under the purview of the Act. So while the council has a PIO it does not update the contact information of the same on its website. “We do not know if information related to RTI Act should be put up on our website. An update of our website is done on a regular basis but the contents are decided by the senior officials,” said Satyanarayana Murty K, registrar and the PIO of the AP Medical Council.
The Indian Railways Welfare Organisation (IRWO) which too claimed immunity from the ACT despite having only former railway employees on its board of trustees was declared a public authority in a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court. The IRWO, set up under the patronage of the Ministry of Railways, Government of India, promotes social welfare schemes such as providing help to acquire accommodation to serving and retired railway employees.
After the Andhra Pradesh Information Commission ruled that IRWO was not answerable under RTI, the appellant challenged it in Delhi High Court, which ruled that the organisation was sufficiently funded directly or indirectly by the railway ministry and thus fell under the Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
