COMMISSION RECOMMENDS PROHIBITION ON RTI ACTIVIST
By Chetan R, Bangalore Mirror Bureau | Oct 10, 2015, 04.00 AM IST
He has filed 437 cases; commission wants 2-year prohibition on his cases
In a landmark decision — first in the state — the state information commission has declared an appellant with 437 cases as abuser of the RTI act, recommending a two-year prohibition on all his cases.
The decision by information commissioner L Krishna Murthy relies on several Supreme Court, High Court and CIC (Central Information Commission) decisions, which are on considering appellants before an information commission as abuser and blacklisting in certain cases considered to be of no public interest and instances of misuse of the act.
The appellant under the scanner is Bangalore Raju Venkatesh Prasanna, a busy activist in the city. While 87 of his appeals are being heard by Court no 4 (presided by L Krishna Murthy), 100 new appeals are to be taken up, and 250 more are pending before Court Hall no 5, Murthy's descriptive order justifying the recommendation to prohibit appeals, dated September 16 states. "The act of prohibition comes after the appellant was considered abuser of the act. If he was not considered abuser, the question of recommending prohibition wouldn't arise," Murthy told Bangalore Mirror.
"This is a case of abuse of the act, and first in the KIC. After finding so, prohibition has been recommended against all his appeals before the commission. If the commission feels the need for revisiting, then it has been recommended to place all his pleas before a full bench and disposed of.
"The decision has been taken based on various decisions of honourable Supreme Court, High Court and CIC. These decisions are on sanctity, importance of the act for a common man in need of information and its misuse by a few at the cost of common man's interest, the court's time and the state government exchequer," Murthy told Bangalore Mirror.
The Case and Order
Explaining the grounds for his action, Murthy cited various mails the complainant had been sending to the commission, which include the following: 'please adjourn/postpone all the KIC cases on 9.9.2015 in LKM (L Krishna Murthy) court and all the KIC cases on 9.9.2015 in LKM court and all the KIC cases posted in future in LKM court', 'transfer of KIC cases from LKM court to SRP (SR Patil) court', opining that the appellant's repeated act affected the commission's work.
A single person filing 437 cases when the commission was burdened with a task to redress over 30,000 complaints, adversely affected and speedy justice was denied especially when an individual files one or two appeals under normal circumstances. The commission has opined that repeated appeals affected social justice for others. The commission has observed that in a few cases, a few people were misusing the act for personal interests.
Citing several judgments and citations, the commission had come to the conclusion that resulted in recommendation of the prohibitory order, the commissioner explained. The absence of any public interest, repeated pleas adversely affecting the public time and money, affecting the other deserving appellants' opportunity to get a hearing, and appeals denied dates for hearing due to delay (in disposing such cases) is justice denied, the commissioner explained.
Appellant's stand
"This pertains to case number KIC of 1966 APL 2014, which relates to BBMP legal cell. Firstly, when a new commissioner comes, one needs at least six months to take up cases. KIC is a lottery court. Here you may hit a jackpot or not. I observed functioning LKM for two months. He used to have over 40 cases on a single day. It's not humanly possible. They didn't take any written submission I gave. They asked to tell orally even as I gave High Court or Supreme orders relevant to cases. I sought for transfer of all my cases from LKM court to SRP court. For a simple transfer, I was blackmailed. I have given it in writing too. Their agenda is to suppress long-term activists. He had told me that I would be blacklisted. I have submitted to the chief that it is a prejudiced move. The CIC orders can't be taken as one knows that that too is one of lottery courts. However, I'm waiting for the order, will read and contest if necessary. There is a High Court order and several orders that an activist can't be suppressed. And let the chief go through and conclude. Let me be given a fair opportunity to present my side. There is no question of misusing the act. The word abuse should be explained, reasons should be justified," Prasanna told Bangalore Mirror.
Excerpts of citations & judgments relied on in the order:
Case 1 Shailesh Gandhi's in CIC observed
Though the Right to Information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfill the demands of one individual. The commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant, by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the commission, is wasting public resources... The commission recommends that the fact of abuse of RTI Act, 2005 shall be recorded and commission should notify the admonition, direction or recommendation if any, to applicants not to resort to abuse anymore along with recommendation to public authorities to refuse such questions.
Case 2 Supreme Court - Central Board of Secondary Education and another v/s Aditya Bandopadhyay and others)
The act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty.
Case 3 Delhi High Court - Shail Sahni v/s Sanjeev Kumar and others
This court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this sunshine act.
Case 4 CIC/SA/A/2015/00050
PIO submitted that retired CMO Dr Shri Niwas Vyas has so far filed more than 200 RTI applications against Sunil Kumar Vyas. Appellant also approached to the CIC five times and CIC has declared him as abuser of RTI. As a repetitive application and repetitive appeal, it is rejected.
In a landmark decision — first in the state — the state information commission has declared an appellant with 437 cases as abuser of the RTI act, recommending a two-year prohibition on all his cases.
The decision by information commissioner L Krishna Murthy relies on several Supreme Court, High Court and CIC (Central Information Commission) decisions, which are on considering appellants before an information commission as abuser and blacklisting in certain cases considered to be of no public interest and instances of misuse of the act.
The appellant under the scanner is Bangalore Raju Venkatesh Prasanna, a busy activist in the city. While 87 of his appeals are being heard by Court no 4 (presided by L Krishna Murthy), 100 new appeals are to be taken up, and 250 more are pending before Court Hall no 5, Murthy's descriptive order justifying the recommendation to prohibit appeals, dated September 16 states. "The act of prohibition comes after the appellant was considered abuser of the act. If he was not considered abuser, the question of recommending prohibition wouldn't arise," Murthy told Bangalore Mirror.
"This is a case of abuse of the act, and first in the KIC. After finding so, prohibition has been recommended against all his appeals before the commission. If the commission feels the need for revisiting, then it has been recommended to place all his pleas before a full bench and disposed of.
"The decision has been taken based on various decisions of honourable Supreme Court, High Court and CIC. These decisions are on sanctity, importance of the act for a common man in need of information and its misuse by a few at the cost of common man's interest, the court's time and the state government exchequer," Murthy told Bangalore Mirror.
The Case and Order
Explaining the grounds for his action, Murthy cited various mails the complainant had been sending to the commission, which include the following: 'please adjourn/postpone all the KIC cases on 9.9.2015 in LKM (L Krishna Murthy) court and all the KIC cases on 9.9.2015 in LKM court and all the KIC cases posted in future in LKM court', 'transfer of KIC cases from LKM court to SRP (SR Patil) court', opining that the appellant's repeated act affected the commission's work.
A single person filing 437 cases when the commission was burdened with a task to redress over 30,000 complaints, adversely affected and speedy justice was denied especially when an individual files one or two appeals under normal circumstances. The commission has opined that repeated appeals affected social justice for others. The commission has observed that in a few cases, a few people were misusing the act for personal interests.
Citing several judgments and citations, the commission had come to the conclusion that resulted in recommendation of the prohibitory order, the commissioner explained. The absence of any public interest, repeated pleas adversely affecting the public time and money, affecting the other deserving appellants' opportunity to get a hearing, and appeals denied dates for hearing due to delay (in disposing such cases) is justice denied, the commissioner explained.
Appellant's stand
"This pertains to case number KIC of 1966 APL 2014, which relates to BBMP legal cell. Firstly, when a new commissioner comes, one needs at least six months to take up cases. KIC is a lottery court. Here you may hit a jackpot or not. I observed functioning LKM for two months. He used to have over 40 cases on a single day. It's not humanly possible. They didn't take any written submission I gave. They asked to tell orally even as I gave High Court or Supreme orders relevant to cases. I sought for transfer of all my cases from LKM court to SRP court. For a simple transfer, I was blackmailed. I have given it in writing too. Their agenda is to suppress long-term activists. He had told me that I would be blacklisted. I have submitted to the chief that it is a prejudiced move. The CIC orders can't be taken as one knows that that too is one of lottery courts. However, I'm waiting for the order, will read and contest if necessary. There is a High Court order and several orders that an activist can't be suppressed. And let the chief go through and conclude. Let me be given a fair opportunity to present my side. There is no question of misusing the act. The word abuse should be explained, reasons should be justified," Prasanna told Bangalore Mirror.
Excerpts of citations & judgments relied on in the order:
Case 1 Shailesh Gandhi's in CIC observed
Though the Right to Information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfill the demands of one individual. The commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant, by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the commission, is wasting public resources... The commission recommends that the fact of abuse of RTI Act, 2005 shall be recorded and commission should notify the admonition, direction or recommendation if any, to applicants not to resort to abuse anymore along with recommendation to public authorities to refuse such questions.
Case 2 Supreme Court - Central Board of Secondary Education and another v/s Aditya Bandopadhyay and others)
The act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty.
Case 3 Delhi High Court - Shail Sahni v/s Sanjeev Kumar and others
This court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this sunshine act.
Case 4 CIC/SA/A/2015/00050
PIO submitted that retired CMO Dr Shri Niwas Vyas has so far filed more than 200 RTI applications against Sunil Kumar Vyas. Appellant also approached to the CIC five times and CIC has declared him as abuser of RTI. As a repetitive application and repetitive appeal, it is rejected.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Anil kumar <anil_crp@yahoo.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment