Advertent (Judge)ment on RTI
The purported order of a bench of SC is manifestly transparent in its inconsistency, if not fallacy, to the spirit and essence of the RTI Act. The order knowingly or unknowingly is a bundle of exposure of vested interests and ambitions of certain sections of legislator, bureaucrat and judiciary, as all are very much interested in undermining the Act itself.
Another aspect the order implicates is that none other than the law trained person has knowledge and experience. For advocating this travesty, the order proceeds in the pretext of giving direction, to go beyond the concept, backbone and spirit of the Act.
Para 104 of the order directs to issue advertisement which should not be restricted to the requirement u/s 12(5), but go beyond to cover persons of all fields.
Knowledge and experience is interpreted to restrict it within the judiciary related persons.
Para 99 amply make it clear that 'Persons of eminence in public life'can be accomplished by better performance only by a legally qualified and trained mind possessing the requisite experience .
Para 6 under the title 'order', proclaims that the Act requires court attached system of administration of justice and not a function akin to the machinery of administration.
It simply intrudes into the power of High-powered Committee constituted under Section 12(3), by directing to have consultations with judiciary.
Para 7 under the title 'order', goes to emphasise that persons possessing a degree in law or having adequate knowledge and experience in the field of law alone will be capable to be the appellate authority u/s 5 of the Act.
Para 4 under the title 'order', erroneously holds that sections 12(5), 12(6) and 15(5), 15(6) of the Act remain with ambiguity or impracticability, whereas this order is brimming with ambiguity or impracticability.
Bringing in a new classification among the Commissioners as 'judicial member' and 'expert member' is just an over stepping beyond the provisions of the Act. It is a matter of great concern to note that the order which prescribe qualification and experience to the judicial member chose to remain silent on the qualification and experience of the expert member. But the basic qualification prescribed u/s. 12(5) is 'Persons of eminence in public life".
The order which interprets sec. 12(6) as having effect of post-appointment, remain ambiguous about whether the judicial member in service happens to be appointed should resign from the service, post- appointment or prior to appointment.
The order also prescribes a basic degree in the respective field enumerated u/s 12(5), to which no court is competent to introduce an additional principle than what is provided in the basic Act.
However the order has rightly quoted under para 103 as "The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding. We are swimming in the former. We are lacking in the latter".
The RTI Act does not call for any complicated legalities, as it is very simple in its application aimed at to be handled by common citizen. As held under para 12 of the order in CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009] August 9, 2011 " The object of the Act is to empower the citizens to fight against corruption and hold the Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the citizens, by providing them access to information regarding functioning of every public authority….. RTI Act provides access to information held by or under the control of public authorities and not in regard to information held by any private person".
Para 37 of the order of SC (supra) explicitely says " The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption".
In regard to the information falling under section 4(1)(b), there is also a special responsibility upon public authorities to suo moto publish and disseminate such information so that they will be easily and readily accessible to the public without any need to access them by having recourse to section 6 of RTI Act.
To accomplish the above simple objective, the implementation of the Act may not warrant the services of judicial or legally trained persons. The Public Authority has the obligation to disseminate what is going on within its office and nothing more, because it is purely a function akin to the machinery of administration and not a system of administration of justice as erroneously held in the order. Does it require a legally trained person just to supply copy of what is in record?
Above all, the PA is duty bound to disseminate all the information as provided for u/s. 4(1)(b) and that too to be done suo motu u/s. 4(2). And also printed copy has to be made readily available with the PIO u/s. 4(4).
If the above mandatory obligations are properly and sincerely carried out by the PA, then there will not be any need to the citizen to seek the information by filing an application.
In such a situation, the need and necessity of designating PIO, appellate authority or establishing the Information Commission will be of little importance. The situation of accumulation of thousands of cases will not be haunting anybody. Avoidable expenditure of crores of rupees by way of administrative expenses to Commissions can be brought down drastically.
Furthermore, if the section 20 of the Act is given its full implementation by the Commissions, the plight of the citizen to run from pillar to post will not be there. The present pathetic situation has been ostensibly created by the inefficient functioning of the Commissions by its total failure in implementing the above provision in letter and spirit.
Hence instead of searching ways and means to undermine the very existence of the Act, but in the pretext of bringing in effectiveness, the bureaucracy and judiciary come forward to discharge their duty through honest and sincere effort and disseminate all the information as provided for u/s. 4 of the Act.
C. Selvaraj
President
Association of Transparency and Anti corruption
Chennai- 600061
cselvaraj1@yahoo.co.in
9444350648
--
V.GOPALAKRISHNAN
gopalakrishnanvelu.blogspot.com
gopalakrishanvelu.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment