Moneylife: Pune: Friday, 9 August 2024.
Against the backdrop of the
scandalous Puja Khedkar case wherein disability certificates were abused and
misused for her entry into the Indian administrative services (IAS) and more
such cases tumbled out Maharashtra’s information commissioner has ordered their
transparency by disclosure on the websites of public authorities that come
under the RTI Act.
Rahul Pande, state information commissioner of the Nagpur bench, conducted the second appeal hearing of a complaint in the Amravati division last week, wherein the public information officer (PIO) denied information regarding copies of a disability certificate and documents of a candidate, citing section 8 (1) exemption of the RTI Act. This section states: “(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual…”
However, Mr Pande gave his order for disclosure of the certificate and documents under section 8 (2) of the RTI Act which states: “(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”
When Moneylife contacted Mr Pande, he stated that “In view of the bogus, fraudulent certificates issued and benefits taken by ineligible candidates it is necessary to have public audits of such certificates and such disclosure is necessary under section 8(2) of RTI for larger public interest. Hence, every public authority should mandatorily disclose disability certificate and documents submitted for procuring such certificates on their respective websites.”
RTI applicant advocate Keshav Rajenimbalkar, a resident of Beed, had sought information from the PIO and deputy registrar of Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural College, Akola. The information pertained to the appointment of a physically disabled individual in this agricultural college. The request included the certificates, unique disability ID card, and other relevant documents submitted by the individual during his appointment in the specified category.
While the PIO rejected the RTI request under section 8 (1), the first appellate authority (FAA) had the audacity not to conduct a hearing at all. This is contempt of the High Court order, ruled Mr Pande. He observed in his order that “…the Hon’ble High Court has issued clear order that in case of appellant filing second appeal before the state information commission against failure of the FAA; so, he must conduct hearing in the case concerned…This is a serious matter as it amounts to contempt of the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, hearing on the first appeal in the said case be held immediately and appropriate self-explanatory order be issued.”
He also observed that the Maharashtra government, through government resolutions (GRs) dated 12 December 2007, 10 June 2008, and 13 February 2015, had stated that FAAs are required to conduct hearings.
Mr Pande also reiterated that since the information sought by the RTI applicant relates to the appointment of individuals to government service under the physically disabled category, it is essential for citizens to verify that appropriate and eligible candidates have been selected for these reserved posts as per government policy. Therefore, the information requested by the RTI applicant should be disclosed voluntarily in accordance with section 4(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It may be recalled that voluntary disclosure of information held by all public authorities, including its publication on their websites or prominent display in their offices, is mandated by the Supreme Court's order dated 17 August 2023 in writ petition (civil) No. 990/2021, Kishanchand Jain vs. Union Bank of India.
Although the documents submitted by candidates appointed to such posts may initially seem to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under section 8(1)(j), the public interest in disclosing such information outweighs this concern, as per section 8(2), said Mr Pande.
The order concluded: “Given the provisions of the Act that permit the PIO to disclose information serving a larger public interest, the requested information, relating to government service and the recruitment process for physically disabled candidates, should be made available.
“Therefore, the concerned authority is not only expected to provide the requested documents to the RTI applicant but also to make them accessible on its official website. It is worth noting that the RTI applicant himself belongs to the physically handicapped category, and there appears to be no personal grudge or bias motivating the information request.
“Despite the category-wise information already provided to the chief secretary of Maharashtra state, due to controversies involving categories such as physically handicapped, sports, and others that receive special concessions, and in light of the recent incidents where forged or misleading certificates were submitted, it is necessary to take appropriate administrative action.
“Therefore, instructions are issued to publicly provide the certificates submitted by individuals in these categories, along with their appointment orders, on the official public website.”
Rahul Pande, state information commissioner of the Nagpur bench, conducted the second appeal hearing of a complaint in the Amravati division last week, wherein the public information officer (PIO) denied information regarding copies of a disability certificate and documents of a candidate, citing section 8 (1) exemption of the RTI Act. This section states: “(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual…”
However, Mr Pande gave his order for disclosure of the certificate and documents under section 8 (2) of the RTI Act which states: “(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”
When Moneylife contacted Mr Pande, he stated that “In view of the bogus, fraudulent certificates issued and benefits taken by ineligible candidates it is necessary to have public audits of such certificates and such disclosure is necessary under section 8(2) of RTI for larger public interest. Hence, every public authority should mandatorily disclose disability certificate and documents submitted for procuring such certificates on their respective websites.”
RTI applicant advocate Keshav Rajenimbalkar, a resident of Beed, had sought information from the PIO and deputy registrar of Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural College, Akola. The information pertained to the appointment of a physically disabled individual in this agricultural college. The request included the certificates, unique disability ID card, and other relevant documents submitted by the individual during his appointment in the specified category.
While the PIO rejected the RTI request under section 8 (1), the first appellate authority (FAA) had the audacity not to conduct a hearing at all. This is contempt of the High Court order, ruled Mr Pande. He observed in his order that “…the Hon’ble High Court has issued clear order that in case of appellant filing second appeal before the state information commission against failure of the FAA; so, he must conduct hearing in the case concerned…This is a serious matter as it amounts to contempt of the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, hearing on the first appeal in the said case be held immediately and appropriate self-explanatory order be issued.”
He also observed that the Maharashtra government, through government resolutions (GRs) dated 12 December 2007, 10 June 2008, and 13 February 2015, had stated that FAAs are required to conduct hearings.
Mr Pande also reiterated that since the information sought by the RTI applicant relates to the appointment of individuals to government service under the physically disabled category, it is essential for citizens to verify that appropriate and eligible candidates have been selected for these reserved posts as per government policy. Therefore, the information requested by the RTI applicant should be disclosed voluntarily in accordance with section 4(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It may be recalled that voluntary disclosure of information held by all public authorities, including its publication on their websites or prominent display in their offices, is mandated by the Supreme Court's order dated 17 August 2023 in writ petition (civil) No. 990/2021, Kishanchand Jain vs. Union Bank of India.
Although the documents submitted by candidates appointed to such posts may initially seem to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under section 8(1)(j), the public interest in disclosing such information outweighs this concern, as per section 8(2), said Mr Pande.
The order concluded: “Given the provisions of the Act that permit the PIO to disclose information serving a larger public interest, the requested information, relating to government service and the recruitment process for physically disabled candidates, should be made available.
“Therefore, the concerned authority is not only expected to provide the requested documents to the RTI applicant but also to make them accessible on its official website. It is worth noting that the RTI applicant himself belongs to the physically handicapped category, and there appears to be no personal grudge or bias motivating the information request.
“Despite the category-wise information already provided to the chief secretary of Maharashtra state, due to controversies involving categories such as physically handicapped, sports, and others that receive special concessions, and in light of the recent incidents where forged or misleading certificates were submitted, it is necessary to take appropriate administrative action.
“Therefore, instructions are issued to publicly provide the certificates submitted by individuals in these categories, along with their appointment orders, on the official public website.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
