Times of India: Mumbai: Thursday, February 07, 2013.
Chief
information commissioner of Maharashtra RatnakarGaikwad on Wednesday rejected
an appeal filed by a Kandivli resident under the Right To Information (RTI)
Act, saying the details sought by him were "irrelevant".
Haresh Jadhav
had sought last 10 years' information on the appointment, transfer and
retirement of all government employees in the state.
"Applicants
should not ask for detailed and irrelevant information as public information
officers (PIOs), besides performing their statutory duties, are also engaged in
the task of providing information to the people. In such circumstances, it
would be appropriate if such information is sought which would bring in
transparency and accountability in administration, halt corruption and is in
public interest," Gaikwad said in his order.
The PIO had
rejected Jadhav's application, saying the information sought by him was
"very wide and irrelevant". Then PIO had invoked Section 7(9) of the
RTI Act while rejecting the application. Under Section 7(9), information sought
can be denied if it "disproportionately diverts the resources of the
public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the
record in question".
While the PIO
had allowed Jadhav to inspect the records, he did not turn up.
Jadhav then
filed an appeal, which has now been dismissed by Gaikwad on the basis of the
observations of the Andhra Pradesh high court (HC) and the Supreme Court (SC)
in two cases. The HC had observed that indiscriminate efforts to secure
information just for the sake of it and without there being any useful purpose
put enormous pressure on the limited human resources. "Diversion of such
resources for this task would obviously, be at the cost of ordinary functioning
and beyond a point, it may mean harassment for the concerned agencies,"
the HC had said.
The SC, too,
had echoed similar views and said, " Subsequently, the apex court observed
that where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public
authority and where such information is not required to be maintained under any
law or the rules, the act does not cast an obligation upon the public
authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then
furnish it to an applicant.
The Act
should not be allowed to be misused or abused... nor should it be converted
into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials... the nation
does not want a scenario where 75% of the staffers of public authorities spend
75% of their time collecting and furnishing information instead of discharging
regular duties." The threat of penalties under the RTI act should not lead
to employees of public authorities prioritizing information furnishing at the
cost of their normal and regular duties,'' the apex court pointed out.
A senior official
said that had Jadhav's plea been accepted, the government would have had to
provide specific data of four lakh-odd employees to him. "He was given an
opportunity to inspect the records, but he did not turn up. RTI activist should
use the landmark legislation for ensuring transparency in administration as per
the spirit of the observations of the apex court."