The Hindu: Hyderabad: Tuesday, 01 September
2015.
Partitions
and bifurcations leave orphans behind. In case of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh,
it is the State Information Commission, the authorised body to oversee the
implementation and promotion of the Right To Information (RTI) Act.
Due to the
legal vacuum coupled with administration’s apathy, around 20,000 orders passed
by nine information commissioners since June, 2014 could be in doldrums. Legal
experts and RTI activists claim that almost all these orders can be challenged
in courts.
Under the AP
Reorganisation Act, all the State departments and institutions to be divided
between the two States were listed in either Schedule 9 (for immediate
division) or Schedule 10 (one year time). However, the AP Information
Commission was neither in schedule 9 or schedule 10 for close to a year even
after the bifurcation. As the Commission continued to pass orders during that
period without any clue about its legal position, the Union Home Ministry
realised the lacunae.
In May, 2015,
the Home Ministry included the Information Commission in the tenth schedule
leading to more legal confusion.
“If the first
step is only wrong, it is but natural that the path taken from then on will
also be wrong,” sums up Ram Madhav, Hyderabad-based lawyer and a researcher on
RTI Act. “According to section 15 (1) of the RTI Act, every State should
constitute its information commission and the Act does not provide for
establishment of a joint State Information Commission for two or more States.
Unfortunately, the Government of India notification to include the Commission
in the tenth schedule of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 itself violates the
provisions of the RTI Act. They should have amended the RTI Act before
including it in the tenth schedule.”
Mr. Madhav
said that since the functioning of the commission itself is not legally tenable
under the RTI Act, the orders can be challenged.
In a latest
move which has been dubbed “unconstitutional” by RTI experts, the Telangana
government issued a G.O. (Government Order) to hand over the charge of Chief
Information Commissioner (CIC) to one of the commissioners after it fell vacant
due to retirement of the previous CIC.
“The order
was issued by the Telangana government whereas the body is still known as AP
Information Commission. Why was the AP government so silent on this issue?”
questions Rakesh Reddy, Convener of Telangana UFRTI (United Forum for RTI
Campaign), umbrella body of civil society organisations. “Both the State
governments are seen fighting for control over various departments and also
assets. But when it comes to Information Commission, they are least
interested.”
Senior RTI
activist C.J. Karira said that the status of the commission can be absolutely
legal only when both the States constitute individual information commissions.