“Citizen has the right to know Cabinet decision”

Print media reports are there on 02-03-2008 in the ‘Indian Express’ and the ‘Hindu’ that the State Information Commission in a complaint by T.Asafali, president of the Thalasserry based People’s Council for Civil Rights, ordered that a copy of the Cabinet decision with relevant notes sought by the citizen should be given to him within 15 days.

Indian Express reports that, “when a complaint against the rejection was lodged, the public information officer of the Home Department, K.K. Ramani was summoned by the State Information Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the rejection of information under sec. 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act was not justifiable. The Commissioner found that PIO of Home Department is responsible for the disposal of the request and ordered to supply a copy of the Cabinet decision with relevant notes to the citizen who made the request for information.

Which Information Commissioner did it?

But the name of the Commissioner who issued such an order / directive has not seen mentioned in the media reports. On an informal inquiry with the Commission officials it is told that such an order was passed against a complaint No. CP 456/2006 registered with the Commission, but they are reluctant to disclose the name of the Information Commissioner.

Why such a secrecy?

The Commission’s Quarterly journal “Kerala State Information Reporter” Vol I (issues I, II & III) contains important orders issued by the Commission. In all these orders included in the Reporter, the details of appellants and the respondents are given but by which Information Commissioner(s) and at what level(s); whether by a single bench/division bench/Full bench; have taken such decisions have not seen mentioned. The Annexure V to the Annual Report2006-2007 also do not have such details. So the decisions of the Commission are lacking transparency and accountability in the administration of RTI Act. Such decisions of the Commission without the authenticity of its promoters throttle the RTI Act.

But in the case of 4 decisions of SIC in their website (www.infokerala.org.in)it can be seen that the 1st (AP No.57/2007/SIC) and the $th (AP No.74/2006/SIC)were decided by the Division Bench of two Information Commissioners, the 2nd (CP No.130/2007/SIC)by a single Information Commissioner and the 3rd (AP No. 161/2006/SIC)by the Full Bench of 4 Information Commissioners and also the names of the Information Commissioners are seen mentioned in the web-copy of decisions.

The Commission is the custodian of RTI Act. People appeal to the commission against the difficulty in getting access to the official information and the commission is the powerful tool to break the iron curtain of the official non-cooperation.An informed citizen is a better judge of the leadership. Secrecy leads to misunderstanding; and misunderstanding leads to misinterpretation of facts.ACCOUNTABILITY and its exercise is central to healthy functioning of any system. The Commission is rather sick in this regard.

(Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides for pro-active disclosure of the particulars of 1) Commission’s organization, functions and duties 2) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability, and 3) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions.)

This provision is equally applicable to State Information Commissions also. The other State Commissions and the Central Information Commission have such pro-active disclosure. We demand transparency and accountability in SIC decisions and effective usage of RTI through e-governance.

However, RIPF put such kind of orders / directives of the Information Commissioner in disguise, to give access to Cabinet Notes to the citizens in the ‘HALL OF FAME’. Please read this and if you also have more about such kind of valuable decisions, put it in the hall of fame and offer your comments.

The New
Indian Express Kochi

SIC fails to redress grievance
Monday March 10 2008 11:10 IST

Manu Bharat
KOCHI: The Right to Information Act has undoubtedly proved to be a powerful weapon to bring transparency to the administration. But unfortunately, the implementing authority, the State Information Commission (SIC), doesn’t seem to address the grievance of the appellants satisfactorily.

The Right to Information Protection Forum (RIPF), an organization fighting for the right to information, has alleged that the Commission lacks the spirit of the rule in its functioning. As a justification for the allegations, the personal experience of the forum’s secretary has been pointed out.

The secretary of the forum N Rajendran filed an application under RTI Act seeking information on a government order relating to `One-Rank One-Pension’. Though the application was filed on May 5, 2006, he hasn’t yet received the required information.

``The Principal Information Officer of the Finance Department and the appellate authority gave me incorrect, incomplete and misleading information withholding 116 pages of the document and tampering with page numbers,’’ Rajendran said. The second appeal was filed by him before the Commission on August 23, 2006. The appeal No 99/2006/SIC was heard by the division bench of the Commission on November 7, 2006. The division bench, which found that the authorities had misled the appellant, issued directions to the department to provide him the missing pages. The order said that failure to comply with the direction would invite action under penal clause Section 20(1) of RTI Act.

``Ignoring the findings of the division bench and without informing the two commissioners who headed my case, another commissioner, who had not even been present at the hearing, dismissed the appeal,’’ said Rajendran. He later filed a Special Leave Petition on the matter which is still pending before the Commission.

To an RTI application filed by the RIPF about the `Rules of Procedure’ in decision-making and work distribution among the Information Commissioner, the Commission through a letter (No:7554/SIC-PIO/2007 dt 28.12.2007) informed that the ``SIC doesn’t have such procedures and has not issued any such orders’’.

``If the Commission fails to elicit the necessary information for the public from top bureaucrats, then the existence of such an authority itself is irrelevant,’’ he said.