Indian
Express: Hyderabad: Tuesday, 10 March 2015.
Nine months
after the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh state was bifurcated and two new governments
have taken over, a state of apathy seems to have cropped in as far as the
implementation of Right to Information act is concerned. While the rate of
disposal of RTI second appeals and complaints is at a staggering low, it is
shocking to know that almost 90 per cent of the departments, HODs and the
districts of both states have failed to disclose information online as per
under Section 4(1)(b).
Section
4(1)(b) of the RTI act makes it mandatory for all public authorities to
disclose all information regarding its functions, duties, revenues,
expenditures etc. The State Information Commission, which continues to be under
schedule 10 of the Union government, however, functions at present for both the
states and its information commissioners continue to hold the same portfolios.
Going by the
figures of cases received by the information commission ie; appeals plus
complaints and cases disposed during a period between June 2014 and March 2015
and comparing the same with figures from the same period the previous year, the
widening gap is evident.
The
statistics reveal that the rate of disposal of cases after the two new
governments have taken charge is a meagre 42.9 per cent compared to a healthy
83.4 per cent in the same period the previous year. The rate of disposal for
the previous year, June 2012 to March 2013, was 91.4 per cent.
The
increasing number of second appeals reaching the information commission ie;
11,773 between June 2014 and March 2015; compared to 9,516 between June 2013
and March 2014 only indicate the lack of responsiveness from Public Information
Officers and First Appellate Authorities at the respective departments.
According to
State Information Commissioners here, “Right To Information is pretty much kept
under anesthesia.”. State Information Commissioner P Vijaya Babu said: “What is
happening is dilution of RTI. Most of the heads of departments and IAS officers
are intentionally not attending to RTI duties. Even when we give our judgments,
many of them do not implement the commission’s directions for conduct of
inquiry.”
They believe
the situation exists as the RTI Act gives a provision where in Appellate
Authorities cannot be imposed with fine and hence not liable to duties as per
the Act. However, the same Act also comprises another provision wherein the
commissioner can treat the Appellate authority as a deemed PIO if he/she is
found to withhold information and impose a penalty of up to `25,000.
“Without
proper knowledge or due to bureaucratic arrogance, officers are trying to
override the provisions of the Act. They must remember that the commissions
powers are vested in civil courts,” he added.
.JPG)
.JPG)
