Orissa: Chief State Information Commissioner calls for zero tolerance of RTI violations

Report by Orissa Diary correspondent; Bhubaneswar: Sunday, December 12, 2010,

Tarun Kanti Mishra, the Chief Information Commissioner of the state called for zero tolerance of the violation of the transparency law. He agreed to hear the cases of the victimization of the whistle blowers on the first Monday of every month. Attending the Public Hearing on the functioning of the Information Commission, Mr Mishra said he would look into to all the cases of grievance of the information seekers and take remedial measures within the ambit of law.

In a Public Hearing conducted by Orissa Soochana Adhikar Manch (OSAM) at Lohia Academy on 12th December 2010 on the functioning of the State Information Commissioner (SIC) participated by above 100 people, where about 30 cases were presented in front of the Chief State Information Commissioner Shri Tarunkanti Mishra, Information Commissioner Jagadananda, former Information Commissioner Radhamohan and RTI activist and Magasaysay award winner Arvind Kejriwal. Earlier such public hearings were held in Delhi, Goa, Gujrat, Andhra Pradseh, Jharkhand, Punjab etc.

N A Shah Ansari from Konark brought out to the notice how the Commission penalized the PIO only six days in a case even when he got the information after a year of delay. The plea of the commission was, he told, that the case had already come to the Commission and therefore is sub-judice! Harihar Pradhan from Naktideul block of Sambalpur district asked the tour diary of the BDO and other officials. After not getting, he approached to the Commission.

But the hearing went on for 3 year, Harihar got the information; but no penalty was taken on the officials for not providing information. Kedar Nath Nanda from Balangir district shared how he was victimized and a false FIR was lodged for being the whistle blower in posting matter of Anganwadi and multi-purpose workers in Balangir block. Srikant Tripathy, a whistle blower from Gediapali GP of Khurda was FIRed as he wanted to inspect the tender process of a pond. Dinabandhu Mishra, Technical Assistant of Sambalpur University sought information on action taken on his leave application from the Sambalpur university. No information came in; he approached the Commission in 2008. His case was not registered uptill now for some technical reasons.

An analysis made by Orissa Socchna Adhikar Manch (OSAM) for the year 2009-10 (1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010) on the functioning of the State Information Commission (SIC) reveals that the SIC has been too soft on the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of various government departments/agencies who have violated various provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Out of total of cases analyzed 926 by OSAM, it claims that in about 659 cases penalty should have been imposed on the PIOs who have not provided information or delayed in supplying the same. However, only in 89 cases penalty was imposed, which is only 13%.

Due to the soft approach of the commission, not only several information seeker were harassed and deprived of getting their rights under the transparency law, but it made a quantum loss of 1.24 crores (approx) to the exchequer. The cases analyzed were on the functioning of former Chief Information Commissioner D N Padhi, current Information Commissioner Jagadananda and the joint bench constituting both the commissioners. Jagadananda, who was present during the hearing, however did not agree to the data and urged the organizers to revisit them.

Arvind Kejrewal summarized the areas which need improvement. Prime among are the high pendency of cases and delay in disposal of the same. There are around 8000 cases pending in the commission. Tarun Kanti Mishra sought the help of Mr Kejrewal for dealing with the matter. Nishikant Mahapatra of OSAM said there is power of the commission to issue arrest warrant against the PIO who does not supply the record or information even after order of the Commission.

The commission agreed to issue 100% show cause notice to the PIOs in case of delay and malafide suppression of information. It also agreed to pass speaking orders on why penalty is not imposed on the erring PIO.