The Times of India:New Delhi:Thursday, February 16, 2012.
Despite the government's reluctance to include disclosure under RTI in public-private partnership (PPP) agreements, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Wednesday said that PPP projects that took state assistance should be brought under the ambit of the Act.
The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), an autonomous public private partnership project headed by the Prime Minister's cardiologist K Srinath Reddy, comes under the ambit of the RTI Act as it is substantially financed by the government, the CIC said.
The PHFI came into existence in 2006 with an initial fund corpus of Rs 200 crore, in which government had contributed Rs 65 crore.
It has on its board five senior officials - Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, advisor to PM T K A Nair, health secretary P K Pradhan and other health ministry officials.
The PHFI had claimed before the CIC that although it places maximum information on its website in public interest, it is not bound to reply to RTI application as it does not come under the transparency law. It also said that the officials that are its board members are occupying the positions in "personal capacity."
Rejecting the argument, Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said it was difficult to assume that "senior public servants" can be on the board of PHFI, which has numerous interactions with the government, in private capacity.
"This would necessarily imply a conflict of interest. The Commission can only assume that such public servants must necessarily be acting on behalf of the government - when they are required to take executive decisions as members of the board - in a public-private partnership (PPP) such as PHFI. Any other conclusion would be an improper slur on their integrity," he said.
Gandhi said it was not possible that public servants could be acting in any manner, but as representatives of the government while on its board and it was also true that significant funding is provided by the state to PHFI.
On the issue of substantial funding of PHFI by the government, he said nearly 30% of its corpus fund has come from it and that cannot be considered as "insubstantial".
Gandhi noted "with some dismay" that the highest levels of public servants in India did not accept the RTI in PHFI, despite the government substantially funding it and exercising some control.
"It follows from the above that PHFI is controlled and substantially financed by the government. Therefore, this Commission rules that PHFI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act," Gandhi added.
The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), an autonomous public private partnership project headed by the Prime Minister's cardiologist K Srinath Reddy, comes under the ambit of the RTI Act as it is substantially financed by the government, the CIC said.
The PHFI came into existence in 2006 with an initial fund corpus of Rs 200 crore, in which government had contributed Rs 65 crore.
It has on its board five senior officials - Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, advisor to PM T K A Nair, health secretary P K Pradhan and other health ministry officials.
The PHFI had claimed before the CIC that although it places maximum information on its website in public interest, it is not bound to reply to RTI application as it does not come under the transparency law. It also said that the officials that are its board members are occupying the positions in "personal capacity."
Rejecting the argument, Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said it was difficult to assume that "senior public servants" can be on the board of PHFI, which has numerous interactions with the government, in private capacity.
"This would necessarily imply a conflict of interest. The Commission can only assume that such public servants must necessarily be acting on behalf of the government - when they are required to take executive decisions as members of the board - in a public-private partnership (PPP) such as PHFI. Any other conclusion would be an improper slur on their integrity," he said.
Gandhi said it was not possible that public servants could be acting in any manner, but as representatives of the government while on its board and it was also true that significant funding is provided by the state to PHFI.
On the issue of substantial funding of PHFI by the government, he said nearly 30% of its corpus fund has come from it and that cannot be considered as "insubstantial".
Gandhi noted "with some dismay" that the highest levels of public servants in India did not accept the RTI in PHFI, despite the government substantially funding it and exercising some control.
"It follows from the above that PHFI is controlled and substantially financed by the government. Therefore, this Commission rules that PHFI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act," Gandhi added.
.JPG)
.JPG)
