Says Info Commission’s Interpretation Of An RTI Clause Could Pose Dangers
Jayaraj Sivan | TNN
Chennai: The State Information Commission’s recent interpretation of a key clause in the Right to Information Act could pose hurdles in the path of people seeking information from government agencies.
The interpretation came in a case relating to an application filed by T Retna Pandian, general secretary of 5th Pillar India, an organisation fighting corruption, on March 5, 2008, before the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). Pandian had sought to know the role of field level officials of the board and how much movable and immovable assets they held. He also sought permission to inspect some registers maintained at the TNPCB office.
Failing to get answers to many queries, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority of the TNPCB. The appellate authority chose to take cover under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act and said asset details of officials need not be divulged as they fell under the exempted category. Pandian then appealed to the State Information Commission (SIC).
Commissioners TR Ramasamy and R Perumalsamy, who heard the case on February 9, 2009, ordered TNPCB officials to provide all information within 10 days of the order being issued. The copy of the order issued last week said, “Property statements are public documents and cannot be said to be attracting the exemption clause.”
It also said that the petitioner, who had sought information with regard to the Chennai, Tiruvallur and Kancheepuram offices, should have applied before the “three public authorities” in the three districts instead of seeking all the information from the TNPCB headquarters.
The commission also cited a memorandum circulated by the ministry of personnel, public grievance and pensions to drive home its point. The memorandum says when a petitioner files an application before a public authority, seeking information that is available with more than one public authority, the public information officer (PIO), who receives the RTI application, should give information relating to his department and advise the petitioner to make separate applications to the other authorities.
Pandian said, “Under the RTI Act, even if the petitioner sends the application to the wrong department, it is the responsibility of the PIO to forward the queries to the PIOs concerned. The circular issued by a ministry is not binding on the SIC. Treating three TNPCB district offices as three public authorities is wrong interpretation of the Act.
Pandian said, “It also says, ‘Every public authority shall designate as many officers as the central PIOs or state PIOs, as the case may be.’” The TNPCB is a public authority. But its district offices cannot be treated as separate authorities. The fallout of the SIC’s order could be dangerous, Pandian feels. He said he would appeal to the HC against the commission’s order.
