GreaterKashmir.com: Wednesday,14 September, 2011.
Srinagar, Sep 13: Information sought under the Right to Information Act has revealed that the state’s Chief Information Commissioner had, four months back, shot off a letter to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah about the urgency of appointing two commissioners at the State Information Commission (SIC). The CIC has cited that the legislation is “gaining momentum” and the “increasing workload” calls for immediate appointment of the two Information Commissioners. But so far, no action has been taken on the issue, raising a question mark over the coalition government’s commitment “to ensure transparency in functioning of government departments by promoting the RTI legislation.”
Vide letter No: PS/CIC/13/11 dated 12.5.2011, CIC had informed the Chief Minister that “implementation of the RTI Act 2009 is gathering momentum.” “You would recall that during my courtesy call last month you were kind enough to observe that your government is seriously seized with the matter of nominating two commissioners. Would I once again request you that in view of the increasing workload an early decision may be taken for the appointment of the two Commissioners.”
The State Information Commission has divulged extract of the letter in response to an RTI application filed by Raman Sharma from Jammu, asking for communication, if any, the CIC had with the Chief Minister on the issue.
Pertinently, in the wake of inordinate delay in appointing two commissioners of SIC, the coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir has come under sharp criticism of Right to Information activists and top-notch legal experts who believe the government is “machinating” to keep the commission powerless and “render the RTI Act gradually ineffective.”
What is putting a huge question mark over the state government’s commitment to ensure transparency in functioning of the government is its recurring failure to appoint the two commissioners and facilitate constitution of the full bench of SIC.
What has brought the coalition government under criticism of the civil society is the accusation that it doesn’t want the RTI to flourish in the state and was hence dallying appointment of the commissioners.
“Jammu and Kashmir took a lead in forming this wonderful legislation in 2004. It was then deemed appropriate to amend the legislation to make it stronger. This was done in 2009 by the present coalition government. But it is sad to observe that the Commission was given the Chief Information Commissioner two years after, in January this year. But again, the Commission is without the commissioners. So this clearly reveals the official inaction which would obviously make us feel that the government is not interested in allowing effective implementation of the legislation,” says a state-based RTI activist, insisting not to be named.
It is argued that consensus is eluding the coalition partners National Conference and Congress on the appointment of information commissioners. Alongside, the opposition Peoples Democratic Party has also come under criticism for failing to exert pressure on the government on the issue.
“Integrity and competence of a person should be the sole criteria to appoint an information commissioner. Let there be no politics over the issue,” says a government official, wishing anonymity.
The RTI has revealed that between 28.2.2011 to 31.7.2011, 223 complaints and 27 second appeals have been filed before the State Information Commission. In 129 cases, PIO/Appellate Authority has appeared before the Commission in pursuance of its summons. In six cases, the SIC says respondents [PIOs/Appealeate Authority] have been asked to explain or show-cause why compensation may not be awarded to applicants.
The SIC says that 24 second appeals and 103 complaints have been “fully decided” by the Commission within a stipulated period of 60 days.
The SIC has said that it is in the process of standardizing its data and record management which “however remains subject to availability of resources. The Commission has succeeded in launching its website and decisions of the Commission besides information are updated on routine basis.”
On RTI rating of public authorities, the SIC has said the matter would “be taken up by the Commission at appropriate time in accordance with provisions of the legislation.”
Vide letter No: PS/CIC/13/11 dated 12.5.2011, CIC had informed the Chief Minister that “implementation of the RTI Act 2009 is gathering momentum.” “You would recall that during my courtesy call last month you were kind enough to observe that your government is seriously seized with the matter of nominating two commissioners. Would I once again request you that in view of the increasing workload an early decision may be taken for the appointment of the two Commissioners.”
The State Information Commission has divulged extract of the letter in response to an RTI application filed by Raman Sharma from Jammu, asking for communication, if any, the CIC had with the Chief Minister on the issue.
Pertinently, in the wake of inordinate delay in appointing two commissioners of SIC, the coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir has come under sharp criticism of Right to Information activists and top-notch legal experts who believe the government is “machinating” to keep the commission powerless and “render the RTI Act gradually ineffective.”
What is putting a huge question mark over the state government’s commitment to ensure transparency in functioning of the government is its recurring failure to appoint the two commissioners and facilitate constitution of the full bench of SIC.
What has brought the coalition government under criticism of the civil society is the accusation that it doesn’t want the RTI to flourish in the state and was hence dallying appointment of the commissioners.
“Jammu and Kashmir took a lead in forming this wonderful legislation in 2004. It was then deemed appropriate to amend the legislation to make it stronger. This was done in 2009 by the present coalition government. But it is sad to observe that the Commission was given the Chief Information Commissioner two years after, in January this year. But again, the Commission is without the commissioners. So this clearly reveals the official inaction which would obviously make us feel that the government is not interested in allowing effective implementation of the legislation,” says a state-based RTI activist, insisting not to be named.
It is argued that consensus is eluding the coalition partners National Conference and Congress on the appointment of information commissioners. Alongside, the opposition Peoples Democratic Party has also come under criticism for failing to exert pressure on the government on the issue.
“Integrity and competence of a person should be the sole criteria to appoint an information commissioner. Let there be no politics over the issue,” says a government official, wishing anonymity.
The RTI has revealed that between 28.2.2011 to 31.7.2011, 223 complaints and 27 second appeals have been filed before the State Information Commission. In 129 cases, PIO/Appellate Authority has appeared before the Commission in pursuance of its summons. In six cases, the SIC says respondents [PIOs/Appealeate Authority] have been asked to explain or show-cause why compensation may not be awarded to applicants.
The SIC says that 24 second appeals and 103 complaints have been “fully decided” by the Commission within a stipulated period of 60 days.
The SIC has said that it is in the process of standardizing its data and record management which “however remains subject to availability of resources. The Commission has succeeded in launching its website and decisions of the Commission besides information are updated on routine basis.”
On RTI rating of public authorities, the SIC has said the matter would “be taken up by the Commission at appropriate time in accordance with provisions of the legislation.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
