Rising
Kashmir: Srinagar: Monday, 06 July 2015.
A total of
2851 appeals and complaints are pending with Jammu and Kashmir State Information
Commission (JKSIC), a study reveals.
New
Delhi-based Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), which is mandated to
ensure the practical realization of human rights in Commonwealth countries, in
a study, ‘The State of Information Commissions and the Use of RTI Laws in
India’ reveals that 2851 appeals and complaints were pending with JKSIC.
The research
and report by Venkatesh Nayak also states that J&K SIC imposed penalties
worth Rs 1.44 lakh in 7 cases in 2012-13.
The 86-page
CHRI report on the state of information commissions and use of RTI laws across
India states that according to Section 22 (2) of the J&K RTI Act, the duty
of ensuring reporting of RTI returns from all public authorities lies squarely
on the concerned ministries.
“Unless they
apply pressure on public authorities under their jurisdiction they will not
fall in line to submit RTI returns in a timely manner,” the report says. “They
must insist filing of RTI returns at least every quarter and the nodal
department charged with ensuring implementation of RTI law under each appropriate
government, must send frequent reminders to the other ministries and department
to do their mandated job.”
The CHRI had
included JKSIC in this study even though it was established by a separate law
passed by the J&K state legislature.
The J&K RTI
Act permits the establishment of a three-member JKSIC and it continues to be
headed by a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service.
The CHRI
report, which is based on the annual reports of Information Commissions between
2012 and 2014, states that Section
11(3)(c) and (4) of the J&K RTI Act make ‘engagement in paid employment
outside of office’ a ground for removal of Information Commissioners, without
making a reference to the Supreme Court to inquire into the matter.
“Therefore,
in order to uphold personal integrity and the institutional integrity of the
Information Commissions, some Information Commissioners have begun the practice
of publicly declaring their assets and liabilities,” the report says.
The CHRI
report states that Section 21 of the J&K RTI Act requires JKSIC to submit a
similar annual report to the State legislature through the State government.
It says that
though SICs have set up online-systems for receiving implementation reports
from public authorities every quarter directly and display their annual reports
on their website after they are tabled before the concerned legislature, their
compliance with these statutory requirements has been poor, year after year.
“In J&K,
the RTI rules framed by the State government in 2010 authorized the JKSIC to
place its decisions on a website but those rules were replaced in 2012 with a
minimalistic set of rules which do not contain such a requirement,” the CHRI
report states. The report also called on the information commissions to make
the text of the RTI laws available in the local official languages of the
State.
The J&K
RTI Act has not been translated into Urdu, the official language of the State.
“Section 22
of the J&K RTI Act require the respective governments to prepare and
disseminate user guides in the local language to educate citizens about their
rights under these laws, with particular emphasis on members of the
disadvantaged segments of society,” CHRI report says. “However, ten years of
implementation of the Central RTI Act should be adequate time for the States to
ensure that local language translations of the law are available.”
The CHRI
report expressed dissatisfaction over the use of RTI in Jammu Kashmir.
“Despite a
decade of the Central RTI Act being in existence and the J&K RTI Act being
in existence for more than five years, the proportion of RTI users has not
risen to even 0.5 percent of the population or even 1 percent of the
electorate,” it said.
The CHRI
report says that number of RTI applicants in J&K increased 127 percent in
2012-13 compared to the previous year the highest amongst all States which
have reported their RTI statistics for the period 2012-13.
“This
development augurs well for a State which is conflict-ridden for a very long
period of time demonstrating the faith of people in constitutional and democratic
methods of holding the public authorities accountable for their actions,” the
report says. It states that Section 21(3)(a) of the J&K RTI Act obligates
every public authority to submit to its parent ministry or department, an
annual report of the total number of requests received.
CHRI report
says security and intelligence organizations notified by the Government of
India and State governments do not have a duty to disclose any information
other than that pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights
violations.
“Information
relating to allegations of human rights violations may be disclosed only with
the approval of the concerned Information Commission,” the report states.
“Section 25(3)(b) of the Central RTI Act and the corresponding section 22(3)(b)
in the J&K RTI Act require public authorities to cite the number of
instances in which they invoked the exemptions to reject information requests.”
The CHRI
report says that under Section 16(3) of the J&K RTI Act, citizens may file
a second appeal with the concerned Information Commission if they are aggrieved
by the decision of the first appellate authorities.
The report
states that under Section 17(1) of the J&K RTI Act, an Information
Commission may impose a penalty on the public information officer from Rs 250
per day to a maximum of Rs 25000 for refusing to receive an RTI application or
delaying the furnishing of information without reasonable cause; malafidely
denying access to information, knowingly giving incomplete, false or misleading
information; destroying information that is the subject matter of a pending RTI
application or obstructing the furnishing of information in any manner.
The CHRI report
says that the Information Commissions are also empowered to recommend
disciplinary action against a public information officer who repeatedly
contravenes the provisions of the RTI laws.
“The
Information Commissions are also empowered to award compensation to an
appellant or complainant who has suffered any loss or detriment on account of
wrongful denial of information,” it states.
The CHRI
report states that anecdotal evidence indicates that Information Commissions
were reluctant to impose penalties or recommend disciplinary action against
public information officers.
“Most of the
Information Commissioners who were career bureaucrats before joining the
Information Commission are perceived to adopt a very lenient attitude toward
public information officers who do not comply with their obligations under the
RTI laws,” it states.
Besides,
Venkatesh Nayak, the CHRI research team included General Editor Maja Daruwala
and Seema Choudhary, Saine Paul, Rupa Bhattacharya, Varun Chopra and Dolvi
Oswal.
.JPG)
.JPG)
