Moneylife: National: Wednesday, 29 January 2025.
The central information
commission (CIC) has expressed grave concern over the handling of a recent
right to information (RTI) request by the public information officers (PIOs) of
the ministry of youth affairs and sports (MYAS), for refusal to accept a second
appeal hearing notice issued by him; under the pretext of the address of the
CIC being incomplete.
The notice, returned with postal remarks citing ‘incomplete address without section name’, infuriated central information commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, and he raised serious questions about the efficiency and accountability of the office.
Terming this attitude of the PIO as ‘prima facie appalling’, he observed that it amounts to a breakdown in communication and procedural adherence of the public authority (PA) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Mr Tiwari also observed that the return of the hearing notice to the CIC indicated that the MYAS lacks a dedicated RTI cell or that the PIOs and appellate authorities (AAs) are unwilling to take responsibility. “Such negligence is a violation of the RTI Act and undermined the RTI, which is a statutory act, with the objective of ensuring transparency and accountability in government functioning,” he added.
In a stern order, CIC Tiwari has directed Vanita Sood, director (administration, policy general, RTI-PG, OL & media) to conduct an inquiry and identify those who are responsible for this dereliction of duty.
Ms Sood has been instructed to present the findings to the competent authority within the MYAS. This report, CIC Tiwari ordered, should be submitted with supporting documentation, within four weeks of receiving the order.
RTI applicant Yatharth Pandya, who is the president of the Sports Activist Association of India, had sought information from MYAS on entry fees and sponsorship details of the prestigious Ultimate Table Tennis (UTT) national ranking tournaments for the junior and senior categories. He sought documents relating to the total amount of entry fees collected during the period of 2022-2023, which were played in various states like Jammu & Kashmir, Gujarat, Tamilnadu, Kerala and others. He also asked for the total sponsorship amount received for these tournaments, including contributions from private companies, PSUs, and government organisations.
The CPIO of MYAS denied information with a single-line reply stating that “The desired information is not available.’’ CIC Tiwari, during the hearing on 6 January 2025, commented in his order that “The PIO is expected to exercise due diligence and make a genuine effort to assist the appellant by invoking provisions such as Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which allow for the transfer of requests to the appropriate custodian of the information. Instead, the PIO simply disclaimed responsibility by stating that the information was held by another authority, which is not acceptable.”
CIC Tiwari slammed the “casual approach” of the then PIO creating “unnecessary obstacles to the free flow of information, which undermines the purpose and intent of the RTI Act. Such conduct is inconsistent with the obligations of a PIO and hinders the appellant's right to access information.”
He issued a show-cause notice to the present CPIO, directing him to explain in writing why action should not be initiated against them under sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, which should reach him within four weeks of the order.
CIC Tiwari directed the CPIO of MYAS to provide RTI applicant Pandya the information he has sought, free of cost within six weeks of the order.
Mr Pandya, when contacted by Moneylife, stated that “The case sets a precedent for upholding transparency and in public administration especially in sports.”
The notice, returned with postal remarks citing ‘incomplete address without section name’, infuriated central information commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, and he raised serious questions about the efficiency and accountability of the office.
Terming this attitude of the PIO as ‘prima facie appalling’, he observed that it amounts to a breakdown in communication and procedural adherence of the public authority (PA) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Mr Tiwari also observed that the return of the hearing notice to the CIC indicated that the MYAS lacks a dedicated RTI cell or that the PIOs and appellate authorities (AAs) are unwilling to take responsibility. “Such negligence is a violation of the RTI Act and undermined the RTI, which is a statutory act, with the objective of ensuring transparency and accountability in government functioning,” he added.
In a stern order, CIC Tiwari has directed Vanita Sood, director (administration, policy general, RTI-PG, OL & media) to conduct an inquiry and identify those who are responsible for this dereliction of duty.
Ms Sood has been instructed to present the findings to the competent authority within the MYAS. This report, CIC Tiwari ordered, should be submitted with supporting documentation, within four weeks of receiving the order.
RTI applicant Yatharth Pandya, who is the president of the Sports Activist Association of India, had sought information from MYAS on entry fees and sponsorship details of the prestigious Ultimate Table Tennis (UTT) national ranking tournaments for the junior and senior categories. He sought documents relating to the total amount of entry fees collected during the period of 2022-2023, which were played in various states like Jammu & Kashmir, Gujarat, Tamilnadu, Kerala and others. He also asked for the total sponsorship amount received for these tournaments, including contributions from private companies, PSUs, and government organisations.
The CPIO of MYAS denied information with a single-line reply stating that “The desired information is not available.’’ CIC Tiwari, during the hearing on 6 January 2025, commented in his order that “The PIO is expected to exercise due diligence and make a genuine effort to assist the appellant by invoking provisions such as Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which allow for the transfer of requests to the appropriate custodian of the information. Instead, the PIO simply disclaimed responsibility by stating that the information was held by another authority, which is not acceptable.”
CIC Tiwari slammed the “casual approach” of the then PIO creating “unnecessary obstacles to the free flow of information, which undermines the purpose and intent of the RTI Act. Such conduct is inconsistent with the obligations of a PIO and hinders the appellant's right to access information.”
He issued a show-cause notice to the present CPIO, directing him to explain in writing why action should not be initiated against them under sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, which should reach him within four weeks of the order.
CIC Tiwari directed the CPIO of MYAS to provide RTI applicant Pandya the information he has sought, free of cost within six weeks of the order.
Mr Pandya, when contacted by Moneylife, stated that “The case sets a precedent for upholding transparency and in public administration especially in sports.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
