Times Now: New Delhi: Tuesday, April 24, 2018.
Chief
Information Commissioner R K Mathur has directed the Prime Minister's Office
(PMO) to disclose the number of files on Subhas Chandra Bose that are still
being held by it. The directive came on a plea by Shobhit Goel who had in
January 2017 asked the PMO about the number of files available with it related
to Subhas Chandra Bose from 1947 to 2016, the number of files which are in
public domain and the number of files that have been destroyed or misplaced.
Not getting the satisfactory response from the PMO, Goel approached the Central
Information Commission with an appeal against the orders of the Central Public
Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority.
The PMO had
transferred his application to the Union Culture Ministry for furnishing the
response after over a month, whereas according to the RTI Act it should have been
done within five days, Goel underscored. During the hearing, the PMO officials
told Mathur that there were 58 files related to Bose in their office that have
already been sent to the National Archives of India. Further, the information
sought by the appellant is of a sensitive nature and hence it took time to
consult the officer concerned to take action in the matter, they said.
Goel said
that the respondent has admitted that there were 58 files in their office but
the respondent has given wrong information to him regarding the number of files
available in the PMO related to Bose, etc.
The Commission is of the view that the respondent should give a revised
reply to the appellant on point no. 1 (regarding no. of files available in PMO
related to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, etc.) of his RTI application dated
January 5, 2017, Mathur said. He
directed the PMO to give a response as per his order within seven days. The respondent (PMO) is advised to ensure
that the RTI applications are dealt with due seriousness and transfer the RTI
application(s) of the applicants within the stipulated period of time. The
concerned deemed CPIO shall be informed by the respondent that such delays are
viewed adversely, he said.