Moneylife: Pune:
Tuesday, April 02, 2013.
According to
a court case, RTI applicants can directly approach the SIC or CIC, as in case
maybe, and lodge a complaint if they do not get a response from the PIO within
30 days
Right to
Information (RTI) applicants can complain directly to State Information
Commissions (SICs) or Central Information Commission (CICs) if no reply from
either Public Information Officers (PIOs) or Appellate Authorities (AAs) has
been received within a stipulated time frame. The Kerala High Court had also
said that SICs and CICs are entitled and must investigate complaints from RTI
applicants if PIOs are not doing their duties. In case they do not, PIOs will
be fined to the extent of the number of days they have not responded.
There was a
case involving a government official who failed to do his duty and who did not
furnish information within the stipulated period, as per the RTI Act. This
happened in 2009, when B Sajikumar, who was a State Public Information Officer
at Kottangal Village, petitioned the court against the SIC’s order and decision
to levy a fine of Rs21,750 against him towards neglect of duty and delay in providing
the information to an RTI applicant.
Earlier, he
argued that the RTI applicant should have approached the First Appellate
Authority (FAA) instead of complaining directly to the SIC. However, the court
maintained that it was the right of an RTI applicant to approach SIC directly
and seek remedy by quoting Section 18 and Section 19 of the RTI Act. The court
said, “It is open to the person seeking information to move the State
Information Commission complaining about the inaction of the State Public
Information Officer, instead of filing an appeal. The remedies are concurrent
and the mere fact that an appeal lies after the expiry of 30 days to the First
Appellate Authority is no ground to hold that the State Information Commission
cannot exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 18 of the Act,
before the first appeal is disposed off. I therefore overrule the petitioner's
contention that the third respondent ought to have filed an appeal under
Section 19 of the Act before the First Appellate Authority instead of straight
away moving the State Information Commission.”
Section 19(1)
of the RTI Act states, “Any person who, does not receive a decision within the
time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section
7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days
from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an
appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public
authority”.
The RTI Act
states that SICs and CICs are entitled to entertain RTI applicants’ complaints
in case they do not receive an order within a stipulated time frame.
Section
18(1)(c) RTI Act states: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be
the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission,
as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who
has not been given a response to a request for information or access to
information within the time limit specified under this Act.”
After
submitting the complaint, the SIC and CIC will then investigate and take
appropriate action. However, this is only when there is no reply received. In
case reply is received and RTI applicant is not satisfied, then the RTI
applicant will have to file first appeal.
However, the
petitioner cited reasons that he was too busy and therefore could not provide
information on time. However, the court was not impressed with his stance and
was critical of him for not adhering to the laws of the RTI Act.
The court
said, “After the Right to Information Act was enacted and brought into force,
every government servant who is designated as the State Public Information
Officer is bound to discharge the duty cast on him under the Act. He cannot
decline to take any action on the requests under the Right to Information Act
on the ground that he has other duties to attend to. As the State Public
Information Officer, the petitioner has a duty to discharge his functions under
the Right to Information Act also. Therefore the mere fact that there was
pressure of work on the petitioner is not a ground to hold that he was not
bound to furnish the information within the stipulated period of 30 days.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
