DNA: Mumbai: Sunday, 03 August 2014.
The State
Chief Information Commission (SCIC) recently directed the govt to set up a
commission headed by a judge to probe charges of tampering with call records of
the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack.
The directive
followed Vinita Kamte moving a second appeal over discrepancy in over two sets
of the same call log records pertaining to the terror attack, in which her
husband, additional commissioner of police Ashok Kamte, was killed. While the
govt may feel Ratnakar Gaikwad, the Maharashtra state chief information
commission (SCIC), had exceeded his brief, opinion among those in the know is
split: some feel SCIC exceeded its brief, some others feel it has not!
How was
Ashok Kamte killed?
Ashok Kamte
was killed by terrorists in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack along with ATS chief
Hemant Karkare and Vijay Salaskar. Vinita Kamte on March 4, 2009, invoking RTI
Act, filed an application to procure call log records of two days 2008 Nov 26
and 27 to find out what had led to their deaths. She had not got proper answers
from Mumbai police and the home ministry in thi9s regard, she said.
Ratnakar
Gaikwad's stance
Gaikwad said
he had ordered the judicial inquiry because the applicant wanted correct
information and not imposition of fine or pulling up of an officer.
What
activists say
· "He
should have conducted an inquiry on his own instead of asking for a judicial
inquiry. RTI Act allows that. Also, the order he has passed is on a complaint
and not on a second appeal. The commissioner should have fined the officer for
giving false information and ordered disciplinary action", Vijay Kumbhar,
a Pune-based RTI activist.
· "I
feel he has exceeded his jurisdiction. He should have remained within the
purview of the RTI Act. His order went ultra vires. He cannot give an order to
appoint a commission. Moreover, the judicial inquiry cannot proceed unless it
gets the sanction of both houses of the legislature", SK Nangia.
Some beg
to differ!
Some activists
however felt the commissioner had passed the order as per the RTI Act.
· "It's
not that the order was pronounced randomly. At the end of the day, it's the
information provided that is at variance with each other. If it's about
information, the Act can be invoked to give directives" – Bhaskar Prabhu.
· "As
per the Inquiry of Commission Act, only the legislature or parliament can order
a judicial inquiry. However, the courts too have been increasingly ordering
judicial inquiry. If the state feels the commission has gone beyond its ambit
just because of what the Inquiry of Commission Act says, court orders should
also be seen in the same light. But as per RTI Act, I think SCIC has the right
to call for an inquiry" –Shailesh Gandhi, former central information
commissioner.
Powers of
information commission:
Are spread
across 3 sections in RTI Act: 18, 19 and 20. However, the inquiry part is
mostly dealt with under section 18 (2) and 19 (8). Section 18 (2) states: Where
the Central Information Commission/State Information Commission is satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into a matter, it may initiate an
inquiry in respect thereof.
Section 19
(8): In its decision, the Central Information Commission/State Information
Commission has the power to: (a) require the public authority to take any such
steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this
Act....
.JPG)
.JPG)
