The
Hindu: Kochi: Sunday, 06 September 2015.
It will
prevent authorities from harassing those seeking vital information from
government officials
The ruling of
the Kerala High Court that even an applicant under the Right to Information Act
gets immunity from legal proceedings against him/her based on the statements in
application comes as a great relief to RTI activists.
D.B. Binu,
RTI activist, said that the landmark verdict gave a new dimension to the RTI
Act and would prevent authorities from harassing those seeking vital
information from government officials. He pointed out that so far only public
information officers under the Act had been given protection against any legal
action under Section 21 of the RTI Act.
Justice A.K.
Jayasankaran Nambiar passed the ruling while quashing disciplinary proceedings
against Amrithun M. George, Assistant Director(Development), Spices Board, for
making a statement in her application seeking answer sheets in the examination
held for the posts of Deputy Director (Accounts) and Deputy Director (Audit and
Vigilance). The petitioner had challenged the charge memo issued to her.
She argued
that it amounted to virtually an act of harassment. Her application filed under
RTI Act said that she believed that certain manipulations were done so as to
make her the last rank holder. Therefore she requested for the original copy of
the answer sheets of all the candidates along with question papers to her in
the examination under the RTI Act. According to the authorities, the statement
amounted to misconduct falling under Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The Judge
observed that it found force in the contention of the petitioner that Section
21 of the RTI Act afforded a protection to an applicant under the RTI the Act.
The contention of the respondents that the provision offered immunity from
legal proceedings only to officers exercising powers under the Act did not
appeal as convincing since the express provisions of Section 21 of the RTI Act
did not “admit of any such restricted interpretation to be placed on the
provisions”.
Quashing the
charge memo, the court said that the petitioner’s statements did not making any
allegation against the respondents. Apart from merely expressing the reasons
that weighed with the petitioner for seeking documents under the RTI Act, the
statement did not refer to any particular officer/officers or to any specific
instructions issued by them.
.JPG)
.JPG)
