FRONT PAGE | Monday, October 26, 2009 | Email | Print | 
61% applicants awaiting info despite valid orders
Nidhi Sharma | New Delhi
It has been eight months since Information Commissioner MM Ansari ordered BSNL to let Prakash Raghunath, a resident of Pune, inspect the files related to his complaint in the SC/ST Cell. Two reminders and several letters later, Raghunath is still waiting for his right to information to be honoured.
Hari Dev Goyal sought information from DDA regarding allotment of flats to 23 persons. The Central Information Commission (CIC), the final appellate authority for the Right to Information (RTI) Act, ordered the agency to provide the applicant with requisite information. After over a year and three complaint letters to the CIC, the building authority has not bothered to part with the information.
These are just two of the 21,000 persons in India who are waiting for rightful information despite favourable orders being passed by the Information Commissions across the country. A recent research conducted by the National RTI Awards Secretariat, a non-Government initiative, reveals that despite the Information Commissions passing pro-disclosure orders, the applicants are not getting the information sought. The research study, which examined orders passed by the CIC and 28 Information Commissions, pegs this percentage at 61.
Prakash Raghunath says, “Why would BSNL part with the information? The CIC should have mentioned a target date to BSNL in its order. The Information Commissioner should write specifically that the applicant should be allowed file inspection by an exact date. I have sent two reminders to BSNL and they have still not given me an appointment for this. What has made BSNL more brazen is that no penalty has been levied against it; so it is taking advantage.”
Raghunath has put a finger on the main reason for the babus dishonouring the Information Commission’s orders - reluctance to slap penalties. The study reveals that on a mere 2 per cent of the pro-disclosure orders has the commissions levied a penalty. The most dismal is the record of North-Eastern States of Manipur and Tripura, where not a single penalty was slapped against errant Government officials for withholding information.
RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal says, “If the Information Commissions do not slap a penalty, there will be no fear among Government officers to implement the orders. There has to be a follow-up mechanism also, where the Information Commissions should see that their orders have been implemented.”
State Information Commissions in Punjab and Karnataka have a follow-up mechanism. Unlike other Information Commissions, they do not close the case till the applicant confirms that he has received information and is satisfied. Kejriwal feels that this practice has its own fallout. “The commissions tire you out with hearings. They have multiple hearings and if the applicant does not turn up once for a hearing, they pass the order that ‘prima facie it seems the applicant is satisfied with the information as he has not appeared before the commission’. So they close the case. This is not an effective way of following up on a case,” says Kejriwal.
The solution to this problem effectively lies in a strong enforcement mechanism. This, says Kejriwal, is possible only if penalties are imposed on errant Government servants. “Follow-up hearings should take place but should not inconvenience the applicants. As far as possible, it should be done through video-conferencing,” says Kejriwal.
The implementing agencies have made the enforcement of orders weak. The CIC, the final appellate authority for the RTI Act, is itself not very effective in getting its orders implemented. Of the 66 Information Commissioners ranked by the study, three commissioners from CIC are among the bottom 10 — M L Sharma, Shailesh Gandhi and MM Ansari.
Email | Print | Rate:
|