‘Ministers diluting RTI Act’

Bangalore Mirror‎‎: Bangalore: Thursday, April 21, 2016.

The RTI Act is a dud for 34 ministers of the state, for a review by the information commission has found that none of these ministers' personnel sections have declared public authorities under them. Even after 10 years of the act being in force, none of the ministers of the state have declared and submitted details under it to the commission.

The Right to Information Act, as part of monitoring and reporting, mandates the state information to prepare a report on implementation of the act and send it to the government every year. It is one such exercise this year that exposed how the personnel sections, which play a vital role in running the ministry, themselves have not declared public authorities under them.

Though each ministry or department should furnish information on public authorities to the commission, over 60 per cent of the authorities in the 38 departments of the state have not furnished such details, a source told Bangalore Mirror.

By not declaring public authority, one can't access information pertaining to petitions, files, decisions and actions at the personnel-section level, which is a source of any action in a department and also the respective minister.

"Each personnel section should submit a report every year on the number of requests made to them, number of cases information was provided for, not provided for, details of first appellate authority, and disciplinary action initiated against public authorities in the administration of the act. But till date none of the personnel sections have adhered to this provision as per the formats as mandated by the act," the senior official of the Karnataka State Information Act said.

Activists say by not declaring public authority, the officials are attempting to safeguard themselves from scrutiny. "Ministers should disclose on their own information under sections 4 (1) (a) and 4 (1) (b) of the act. Even though some have mentioned in their sites, it's partial and incomplete as it doesn't have information on the public information officer and the first appellate authority," and activist said.