Bangalore
Mirror: Bangalore: Monday, 14 December 2015.
The verdict
over denial of information in a curious case of an RTI application seeking
information on the cost of prime minister Narendra Modi's campaign trail as
prime ministerial candidate during 2014 polls, cost incurred on his air travel
using chartered flights, and his canvassing costs, has given a new fillip to
RTI activism in the state. RTI has been bogged down by inordinate delays and
indefinite dates to hear cases.
In a respite
to public and RTI activists waiting for months and years seeking solution to
their appeal before the state information commission, which had no deadline so
far to redress the second appeal, the high court has set a 45-day limit. RTI
activists hailed the judgment, which would henceforth prevent the process of
second appeal being an arduous, time-consuming and expensive affair with
desired results almost never coming up.
The case:
The case
pertains to one Jayaprakash Reddy, a resident of Konappalli in Chickballapur
district. Jayaprakash had sought information from the public information
officer of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in July 2014.
He wanted
information on the number of total parliamentary constituencies the present
prime minister travelled as prime ministerial candidate canvassing for BJP
during the 2014 general elections. He also wanted information on individual
expenditure fixed in INR for each candidate under Representation of the People
Act, total travel expenditure incurred by the Modi as PM candidate, including
that of chartered flights' airfare, individual election expenditure incurred by
each successful candidate of BJP during the elections, total expenditure
incurred by BJP towards electronic and print media, and canvas remotely made by
the prime ministerial candidate using 3D television creens installed at public
places, and the total fund allocated by BJP to each of the states during the
elections.
In its reply,
the petitioner was directed to approach the chief electoral officer of the
respective state and also district election officers. However, the petitioner
had preferred the first appeal before the first appellate authority and after
the first appeal was rejected, a second appeal was filed before the central
information commission (CIC), which was pending since October 2014.
Subsequently, with the inordinate delay, the petitioner moved the high court
seeking that a definitive timeframe be set, saying it may otherwise lead to the
miscarriage of justice.
"Though
the RTI act does provide for a time within which a first appeal is to be
decided, namely not exceeding 45 days from the date of filing, there is no such
time prescribed for deciding second appeals. The first respondent has
indefinitely postponed the hearing and is not deciding the second appeal,
therefore the present petition. It is indeed to be noticed that no time limit
is prescribed to decide a second appeal. Therefore, it would have to be
interpreted that when no time is prescribed, it would follow that it ought to
be decided within a reasonable time. Consequently, it would be deemed that the
second appeal would also have to be decided within a period of 45 days if not
earlier, from the date of filing," the high court had observed, directing
the CIC to pass an order within four weeks.
The order
passed by the high court in October, activists said, will have far reaching
effect as the state information commission has a pendency of over 29,000 for
years together. This may also have a bearing in other states too, officials of
the SIC told Bangalore Mirror.
.JPG)
.JPG)
