Joint statement by RTI and privacy activists on the amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in context of proposed Data Protection Bill

Joint statement by RTI and privacy activists on the amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act proposed by the Committee of Experts under the Chairpersonship of Justice B. N. Srikrishna The Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy (RTP) are fundamental rights flowing from the Indian Constitution. The State has an obligation to protect and promote both rights. To strengthen democracy and constitutional freedoms, it is critical that the two rights be carefully balanced. The Justice Srikrishna Committee, tasked with drafting the Data Protection Bill was therefore expected to develop a framework harmonizing the need to protect certain kinds of personal data with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which lays out the statutory framework for Indian citizens to access information, including personal information. However, the Draft Data Protection Bill, 2018 (DPB) prepared by the committee, fails to safeguard and balance the two. If accepted, the amendments proposed to the RTI Act, 2005 through the DPB will severely restrict the scope of the RTI Act and adversely impact the ability of people to access information. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 states: “8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:” However, the exemption is not absolute and information has be disclosed if it is such that cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature (proviso to 8(1)), if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests (section 8(2)) or if the information relates to any event or matter which has taken place twenty years ago (section 8(3)). The Justice Srikrishna Committee has proposed that Section 8(1)(j) be amended to read as follows1: “8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxx (j) information which relates to personal data which is likely to cause harm to a data principal, where such harm outweighs the public interest in accessing such information having due regard to the common good of promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authority; Provided, disclosure of information under this clause shall be notwithstanding anything contained in the Personal Data Protection Act, 2018; Provided further, that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, the terms “personal data” , “data principal” and “harm” shall have the meaning assigned to these terms in the Personal Data Protection Act, 2018.” Currently, in order to invoke section 8(1)(j) to deny personal information, atleast one of the following grounds has to be proven- information sought has no relationship to any public activity; or information sought has no relationship to any public interest; or information sought would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and PIO/appellate authority is satisfied that there is no larger public interest that justifies disclosure. By replacing this with the proposed formulation that personal information would be exempt if it can be shown that disclosure is likely to cause harm and such harm outweighs public interest, the DPB seeks to severely curb the disclosure of information. It is crucial to note that the proposed amendments refer to a mere possibility of harm, rather than a reasonable certainty. Further, the definition of the term “harm” which is sought to be applied to section 8 of the RTI law, is very broad. This would have a chilling effect on the RTI Act. The term “harm” is defined as “(i) bodily or mental injury; (ii) loss, distortion or theft of identity; (iii) financial loss or loss of property, (iv) loss of reputation, or humiliation; (v) loss of employment; (vi) any discriminatory treatment (vii) any subjection to blackmail or extortion; (viii) any denial or withdrawal of a service, benefit or good resulting from an evaluative decision about the data principal; (ix) any restriction placed or suffered directly or indirectly on speech, movement or any other action arising out of a fear of being observed or surveilled; or (x) any observation or surveillance that is not reasonably expected by the data principal.” Finally, the scope of the public interest test within the proposed section 8(1)(j) appears to have been narrowed, by restricting it primarily to the promotion of transparency and accountability in the functioning of a public authority, as opposed to a more expansive understanding of public interest in terms of upholding constitutional values of social justice, welfare and democratic rights of citizens. The proposal to amend the RTI Act through the Data Protection Bill, 2018 appears to have been hastily drafted based on an incorrect understanding of the RTI law. For instance, the Justice Srikrishna committee seems to have erred in interpreting the proviso to section 8(1), which states that “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”, as being only applicable to section 8(1)(j) and not to the whole of section 8(1). A perusal of the original gazette notification of the RTI Act2 shows that by virtue of its placement and indentation, it is applicable to all of section 8(1) and not merely section 8(1)(j). There are several judicial pronouncements3 to this effect. The amendments proposed to the Right to Information Act, 2005 through the Data Protection Bill, 2018 drafted by the Justice Srikrishna Committee will fundamentally weaken the RTI Act for the reasons highlighted above. It is pertinent to note that since the constitution of the Justice Srikrishna Committee, many of us have highlighted our concerns related to the lack of diversity in the composition4 of the committee and also the lack of transparency5 in the functioning of the committee. Proper composition of the committee and transparency in its functioning were crucial to ensure that a robust regime for data protection was created without undermining peoples’ right to information. We believe that the legal framework for privacy and data protection should complement the RTI Act and in no way undermine or dilute the existing statutory framework that empowers citizens to hold power structures to account. The provisions of the Draft Data Protection Bill need to be suitably amended and harmonized with the provisions and objectives of the RTI Act. This would be in line with the recommendation of the Justice A.P. Shah Report on Privacy (2012) that, “The Privacy Act should clarify that publication of personal data for in public interest, use of personal information for household purposes, and disclosure of information as required by the Right to Information Act should not constitute an infringement of Privacy.” Neither the recognition of the Right to Privacy, nor the enactment of a data protection law, requires any amendment to the existing RTI law. We, therefore reject the amendments proposed to the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the Data Protection Bill, 2018 drafted by the Justice Srikrishna Committee Signed for Save Our Privacy by Vrinda Bhandari, Naman M. Aggarwal, Gautam Bhatia and Raman Jit Singh Chima. Signed for National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) by Anjali Bhardwaj, Venkatesh Nayak, Nikhil Dey, Rakesh Dubbudu, Ashish Ranjan, Pradip Pradan, Rakshita Swamy, Sai Vinod and Nachiket Udupa. 1No amendment is sought to be made to sections 8(2) or 8(3) of the RTI Act. 2https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf 3See judgment in Union of India & Ors. Versus Col. V.K. Shad WP (C) 499/2012 by the Delhi HC; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus The Central Information Commission and Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2011 by the Punjab & Haryana HC; The Registrar General vs R.M.Subramanian on 14 June, 2013 by the Madras HC 4The Committee had a preponderance of members who have voiced, or echoed views, that seem to support Aadhaar and did not include any individuals with expertise in the field of RTI – Letter sent to Committee about this. 5Crucial information, including minutes of meetings of the Committee and presentations and submissions made to it, were not proactively disclosed and were in fact denied to citizens in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. - Letter to Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad about this.

Memorandum for Dismissal of Bikram Senapati, Odisha Information Commissioner

To Sri Jalada Kumar Tripathy State Chief Information Commissioner, Odisha, Toshali Bhawan ,Satyanagar Bhubaneswar Sub- Seeking an inquiry into allegation of misbehavior, harassment, show of arrogancy and use of filthy language to the complainants/ appellants during hearing of Complaints/ Second Appeals by Sri Bikram Senapati, State Information Commissioner and initiate legal proceedings against him under section 15 (1) of the RTI Act and recommend to Hon’ble Governor, Odisha for his dismissal under section 17 of the RTI Act. Respected Sir With due respect humble and submission , we the RTI Activists having allegiance to Odisha Soochan Adhikar Abhijan, ( a state level RTI forum leading campaign for effective implementation of RTI Act in Odisha ) gather together while conducting protest Dharana on 2.12.22 at Toshali Bhawan, Bhubaneswar and draw your kind attention the following allegation against Sri Bikram Senapati ,State information Commissioner for your urgent intervention and necessary action. Sir, Sri Bikram Senapati, joined as State information commissioner on 09.09.2020 at Orissa Information Commission. During his incumbency period since 2020 till date, he has disposed of around more than 95 % of cases without imposing penalty and ensuring information to the information-seekers. As we have experienced, during hearing of the cases, neither he listens appellant pleasantly and calmly nor does allow them to complete their argument properly . Even from ab initio he has maintained same strategy to misbehave information seekers during argument, encourage PIO not to furnish information , argue in favour of defaulting PIO , threaten information seeker using slang language , ask appellants to move high court against his mischief and disposal of cases without any penalty and non-supply of information . Many times he like anti-social uses very filthy and unconstitutional language to the appellant and senior citizens. Like other Information Commissioners, he is not sociable and behaves as criminal. During hearing without looking at the information need of the information seekers, he simply asked and made query like “why you had applied for information? What will you do with this information? You people are making deals to get money by filling multiple RTI Applications, who said you to seek information” and continues to misbehave and threaten them. He always discourages appellant not to ask information to various Govt offices and asks the reason for seeking information. He has very hatred attitude towards Dalit Community and makes caste aspersion using abusive languages against them. Here we are citing some of his cases where Sri Bikram Senapti disposes case in a most callous and dishonest way without ensuring information to the appellant a. Case No- S.A. 2325/2020, dt 02.11.2022 - Appellant Amuly Kumar Majhi , an RTI activist and belongs to depressed section of society. During hearing of his case Bikram Senapati asks him with loud voice to get out from his chamber as you have already received some information. When Sri Majhi insisted for complete information, Mr. Senapati abused him with vulgar language saying you are pimp, collecting money for maintaining your family, rascal, how dare you to argue with me. You don’t have other work to do instead seeking information? Who said you to seek information ? How many corruption you have exposed collecting information, come with that then I will order for complete information. He abuses him in the name of his caste and casteist remark. Amulya Majhi has lodged an FIR against Bikram Senapati at Kharvel Nagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar seeking an inquiry into the allegation. He has also filed a petition before Hom’ble Governor, Odisha seeking action against Sri Bikram Senapati. b. Case No. SA.1507/2020, dt.30.06.2022 - RTI Activist Prakash Das appeared on behalf of appellant Sri Akshaya Prusty . During hearing Sri Senapati said that he would not hear any case even single word from you. When Prakash Das asked about the reason, he said wont record any statement from you and reason is well known to you and me. Again when Prakash Das asked whether any decision had been taken not to hear my cases, Mr Senaapti said I instructed means you have to leave without any rhyme & reason. Main intention behind his misbehavior is that Prakash Das has earlier heard two cases before him vide CC. 158/2020 & 159/2020 where Bikram Senapati arbitrarily disposed off his case without any penalty and misbehave him willfully. c. Case No. SA.1440/2020 , dt 30.06.2022 where appellant was Dusmanta Narayan Acharya .He was fighting his case of Second Appeal against denial of information by the PIO, Office of ICDS office ,Rajkanika of Kendrapara district . During his hearing Bikram Senapati took the side of defaulting PIO supporting his argument. To counter Mr Senapati’s dig at him, he presented his argument, but Bikram Senapati misbehaved him and used derogatory words against Sri Dusmanta. Even he threatened Dusmanta to dare to move to high court and supreme court and President of India against his Order. He said no one will do anything against him. I will do whatever I want. Without ensuring information, he disposed off this case. d. Case No. SA. ……………………..dt………………….where appellant was Sanjay Mohapatra . He was heard second appeal case about a primary school near by his house. RTI Activist Srikant Pakal was present with him to assist him. When Sanjaya Mohapatra presented his argument of not getting complete information and Srikant Pakal endorsed Mohapatra’s view stating most and priority duty of Information Commissioner is to first ensure information . but Mr senapati argued when PIO said he had given information. Sri Senapati said when information is supplied why you are arguing with me. then whya re you arguing with me . Mr Senapati neither verified the information and nor tried to understand the concern of appellant. Rather Mr Senapati misbehaved Srikant Pakal and Sanjaya Mohapatra both . Threatened to get out from the court. Even in his order Mr Senapati disposed of case with the order that Mr Pakal had threatened him of dire consequence during hearing, without any action and penalty. He disposed off the case with no order except allegation against appellant. e. Similarly in case of RTI Activist Manoran Jena , Jitendra Sahoo from Cuttack , Ashok Dutta from Balasore , Praksh jena from Bhadrak and many other activists , Bikram Senapati disposed off the case with allegation against appellant citing petty reason and misbehaved them. He also scolded appellant with derogatory words and unparliamentarily language , threatened them to go and file case in High Court, endorsing view of defaulter PIO and advocating in support of them . As an Information Commissioner, Mr Bikram Senapati does not have minimum respect to Right to Information act and its rule, never referred various orders of CIC and other information Commissioners. He has never delivered a single exemplary order where a defaulter PIO and appellate authority will take it serious and congnisance against him . Out of his total disposal of SA & Complaint cases, in more than 95% of cases he disposed off all case without penalty and ensuring information. Even in many order, he has levelled allegation against appellant without delivering the order as per the act to be framed for a commissioner. Every day he misbehaves and shouts with shroud voice to gullible information-seeker . suggested them to move to High court against him, warning them with dire consequence and not to use RTI act against Govt . He levelled RTI activists as blackmailer , tarnished their image with derogatory words . everyday many complaints are raising against him . Hence we request your Good office to conduct an inquiry against his all disposal cases and his conduct as an information commissioner under section 15 (1) of the RTI Act. We also request you to recommend to Hon’ble Governor, Odisha for dismissal of Sri Bikram Senapti from the post of State Information Commissioner under section 17 (3)(d) of the RTI Act Yours sincerely Members of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan ( OSAA) Date- 2.12.22

Personal Data Protection Bill will amend RTI Act

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/digital-personal-data-protection-bill-proposes-to-amend-rti-act-to-completely-bar-disclosure-of-personal-information-214573

Frontline Story on RTI

https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/right-to-information-act-losing-its-sheen-with-weakened-machinery-for-its-implementation/article66115118.ece RTI Act losing its sheen with weakened machinery for its implementation ASHUTOSH SHARMA Print edition : Nov 24, 2022 When the Right to Information (RTI) Act came into force on October 12, 2005, it was hailed as the “sunshine law” which would make governments transparent and accountable besides empowering citizens through their enhanced participation in democratic processes. Sadly, the shine has since faded and public-spirited RTI users are a disillusioned lot today. Targeted attacks, threats, and false criminal cases are what they have to deal with now on a regular basis. “Of all the risks and assaults what is most painful is the misnomer that RTI activists are ‘blackmailers’,” said Amra Ram, a 30-year-old RTI activist from Rajasthan’s Barmer district. He faced a brutal assault in December 2021—his hands and legs were broken and pierced with nails. The provocation, according to reports, was his sustained work exposing corruption in projects granted under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in Kumpaliya panchayat. Almost one year after the attack on him, said Ram, “the police are yet to nab half the accused persons”. Kavita Srivastava, national president of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), said: “Over the past 10 years, more than a dozen RTI activists have been brutally attacked in Rajasthan alone. And yet it is not an issue for political parties.” According to Nikhil Dey, founding member of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), more than 100 RTI users have been murdered all over India in the 17 years since the Act came into being. Activists shout slogans during a protest against the amendments to the RTI Act in New Delhi in 2019. Activists shout slogans during a protest against the amendments to the RTI Act in New Delhi in 2019. | Photo Credit: MONEY SHARMA Recently, Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), a citizens’ group working to promote transparency and accountability in governance, released a report on the performance of Information Commissions. “The law has initiated the vital task of redistributing power in a democratic framework,” wrote Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, activists associated with the SNS and NCPRI, in the report. An estimated 60 lakh RTI applications are filed in India annually, said the report. “The (COVID-19) pandemic, coupled with high levels of unemployment and rising inflation, has made millions of families more dependent on the government for delivery of basic goods and services than ever before,” it pointed out. Increasing backlog The report reveals that at least two State Information Commissions (SIC)—Jharkhand and Tripura—were defunct as new commissioners have not been appointed upon the incumbents demitting office. Additionally, as many as four commissions were headless—the SICs of Manipur, Telangana, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh. Maintaining that the backlog of appeals and complaints has been steadily increasing, the SNS study stated that 3,14,323 appeals and complaints were pending as on June 30, 2022, in the 26 Information Commissions. When it came to the average monthly disposal rate and pendency in commissions, the West Bengal SIC would take an estimated 24 years and 3 months to dispose a matter, the report stated. “In Odisha and Maharashtra SICs, estimated time for disposal is more than five years and in Bihar more than two years,” it said. Notably, the commissions did not impose penalties in 95 per cent of the cases where penalties were potentially imposable. Flourish logoA Flourish map “The functioning of commissions is a major bottleneck in the effective implementation of the RTI law,” the report noted. “Large backlog of appeals and complaints in many commissions across the country have resulted in inordinate delays in disposal of cases, which render the law ineffective. Commissions have been found to be extremely reluctant to impose penalties on erring officials for violations of the law. Unfortunately, the transparency watchdogs themselves have not had a shining track record in terms of being transparent and accountable to the people of the country.” ALSO READ: ‘RTI helped change the culture of governance’ In Jammu and Kashmir, official claims regarding clean and efficient governance after the revocation of the special status of the erstwhile State seem misplaced in the context of the RTI Act. Unlike the Central law, the repealed Jammu and Kashmir RTI Act, 2009, had provisions that mandated the SIC to decide RTI appeals within 60 to 120 days. “Under the Central Information Commission (CIC), disposal of appeals is taking an unusually long time,” said Raja Muzaffar Bhat, chairman and founder of J&K RTI Movement. “Since the Union Territory doesn’t have an SIC, all RTI appeals from UTs are listed before the CIC in New Delhi. My own RTI second appeal could be listed before the CIC early this year after 13 months,” he said. “The SNS report stated that 3,14,323 appeals and complaints were pending as on June 30, 2022, in the 26 Information Commissions.” Bhat said that with the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, “the mindset of government officials too has changed since the J&K SIC has been shut down. Also, the government has not held any orientation programme or training workshop for its officers and citizens on the RTI Act 2005.” Defamation cases Pradip Pradhan, national co-convener of NCPRI and convener of the Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (OSAA), a forum of RTI activists, said that to check growing activism, the Odisha Information Commission had filed defamation cases against two RTI activists in the civil court in Bhubaneswar. “The attack on RTI activists in Odisha is part of a well-thought-out plan to render the Act dysfunctional. The state machinery and mafias are working in tandem to tarnish their image and belittle their work,” Pradhan said. “Several RTI activists pay the price for their activism as they are subjected to humiliation, threats of arrest, and false and fabricated legal cases,” he added. On March 27, 2021, Sarbeswar Behura, 52, a member of OSAA, was critically injured when bombs were hurled at his car. Rilu Behura, Sarbeswar’s wife, went to Dharmashala police station the next day along with Pradip Pradhan and RTI activists Srikant Pakal and Jitendra Sahu, to register a case, but the police refused and said they had registered a case on their own. “Behura has been attacked twice in the past. Though he filed FIRs, the police did not take any action,” Pradhan said. Flourish logoA Flourish chart Ram and Behura escaped with their lives. Many are not so fortunate. Ranjan Kumar Das of OSAA was murdered on January 31, 2020. In Madhya Pradesh, RTI activist Ranjeet Soni was shot dead on June 2, 2022. Reportedly, he regularly sought information about government expenditure on infrastructure development, hospitals and welfare schemes. In Barmer, RTI activist Jagdish Goliya, 47, died in police custody in 2019 after he was arrested over a land dispute. “Though he had suffered serious internal injuries, he wasn’t taken to hospital,” said Kavita Srivastava. “Those who try to expose corruption end up being slapped with false police cases. But we hardly see any action against the perpetrators who threaten and harass RTI users,” she added. Regarding vindictive FIRs filed against RTI users, Justice (retired) Madan B. Lokur said: “In most cases, they are falsely booked under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or slapped with molestation charges. In such cases, it becomes difficult to get bail.” Reduced power Lokur said financial compensation should be provided in cases where RTI activists are murdered, attacked, or persecuted. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear directions, the police often delay filing FIRs on receiving complaints from persecuted RTI activists, he pointed out. “Even in cases where FIRs are registered, action is rarely taken against the real conspirators. Only henchmen are prosecuted,” he said. Incidentally, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, notified on May 12, 2014, has not been implemented so far. The law, according to the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, needs amendments to bar disclosures affecting sovereignty and integrity of India. Pradhan said that instead of waiting for the Centre to implement the Act, “State governments should bring in their own laws for the protection of whistle-blowers and their families.” Through the Draft RTI Rules 2017, the Narendra Modi government proposed that proceedings relating to an RTI query should automatically stop if the applicant dies during the pendency of an appeal before the CIC. “We fought against this proposal and didn’t let it get implemented,” said Dey. Following the mysterious death of RTI activist Ravinder Balwani, the CIC had moved a resolution in 2011 that read: “If the Commission receives a complaint regarding assault or murder of an information seeker, it will examine the pending RTI applications of the victim and order the concerned Department(s) to publish the requested information suo motu on their website as per the provisions of law.” The resolution said governments must take steps for the protection of RTI users. “This resolution should be firmly implemented by the CIC and SICs. It will send out a message that the issues won’t die down in case you kill an RTI user or one dies because of any other reason,” Dey said. Clearly, there is a strong need to strengthen the RTI law to fulfil its objectives. RTI crusaders feel that the opposite is happening. In 2019, the Right to Information (Amendment) Act was passed without any discussion in Parliament. The amendments not just undermined the position of the CIC and the SICs but also made them subservient to the government. ALSO READ:Diluting the RTI Commenting on the changes, social activist Aruna Roy accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of weakening the RTI movement. “Amendments to the RTI in 2019 mark a watershed in successive governments’ attempts to dilute the Act. The BJP government prevailed over citizens’ resistance against weakening the law. It strategically reduced the power and independence of Central and State Information Commissions and brought both the bodies under its control,” Roy said, adding, “The RTI movement continues. But the machinery for the implementation of the law has been weakened, severely diluting democratic practice in India.” On September 9, 2021, a group of 15 sitting and retired Information Commissioners wrote to the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), N.V. Ramana, complaining that High Courts were staying the orders of Information Commissioners. The letter requested CJI Ramana to direct the courts not to entertain pleas against orders passed by the CIC and SICs. Former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi told Frontline: “The letter elicited zero response. The situation hasn’t changed. And this is in violation of the [RTI] law.” On complaints regarding delayed responses to pleas concerning life and liberty issues (except sensitive criminal matters), where information is to be provided within 48 hours of receiving an application filed under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, Gandhi said: “Governments seem incapable of implementing the law.” The Crux Right to Information (RTI) Act came into force on October 12, 2005. RTI users are a disillusioned lot today. Targeted attacks, threats, and false criminal cases are what they have to deal with now on a regular basis. Recently, Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), a citizens’ group working to promote transparency and accountability in governance, released a report on the performance of Information Commissions. The SNS study stated that 3,14,323 appeals and complaints were pending as on June 30, 2022, in the 26 Information Commissions. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, notified on May 12, 2014, has not been implemented so far. There is a strong need to strengthen the RTI law to fulfil its objectives.

Illegal land grabbing by ruling party MP fraudulently regularized: Lokayukta’s stance lackadaisical

 

Illegal land grabbing by ruling party MP fraudulently regularized: Lokayukta’s stance lackadaisical

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

--https://orissamatters.com/2022/05/13/13052022/

A vast area of 12 Acres of very precious public land in the Capital City of Orissa under illegal occupation of Achyut Samant, presently a ruling party MP, who runs an educational business styled KIIT, has been fraudulently regularised.Lokaykta’s stance against this engineered fraudulence is lackadaisical, it seems.

As a dutiful citizen, Orissa Sochana Adhikar Abhijan Chief, eminent RTI activist Pradip Pradhan had raised a dispute against this foul play in the shape of a complaint before the Lokayukta, Orissa vides Case No. LY322/2021.

“……we find no merit in the allegation of complaint that Achyuta Samant, founder of KIIT is in illegal occupation of 12 acres of land worth Rs.250 crores in collusion with the officials of GA & PG Department”, the Lokayukta has said while closing the complaint on 9.3.2022.

From the reply of the State Chief Secretary, the Lokayukta has quoted, “KIIT did enter into litigation with the Estate Officer against the Order of eviction and since many years have passed, the final outcome of litigation is not known.”

When the Chief Secretary of the State admits that the Estate Officer had issued an order to evict Samant from the land encroached by him, and the encroacher had “entered into litigation against the order of eviction”, the final outcome of which is not known, he indirectly confesses that the concerned file is suppressed or missing in the department. The Chief Secretary has bragged that the missing of the file is obvious, “since many years have passed.”

What a great Statement by a great State’s Chief Secretary before the great Lokayukta of the State!

The Chief Secretary has admitted that the eviction order was passed against Samant “many years” ago, but the “outcome” of Samant’s litigation against that eviction order “is not known.” Records in the Lokayukta show that the illegally occupied land in four plots was leased out to Samant on 27.12.2019 and two more plots on 22.1.2021 and 22.7.2021 one by one. This is enough to make one convinced that Samanta’s litigation against the eviction order still stands or had failed “many years” ago. The Chief Secretary is discernibly silent on the failure of Samant’s litigation against the eviction order, which strongly suggests that, despite knowing that a valid eviction order is standing against the land under Samant’s illegal occupation, he, by himself or under orders of ther Chief minister, has allowed the involved landed property of the people to the trespasser Achyut Samant, the Chief Minister’s close friend.

The shenanigans behind this transaction need to be investigated in the best interest of the State. Instead of closing the case lackadaisically, it would have been better for the Lokayukta to order an investigation into conspicuous corruption in this stage-managed lease and to initiate action against the Chief Secretary for not knowing the outcome of the eviction case.

It is sad to see that the purpose of Law is allowed by the Lokayukta to succumb to the imprudence of a Chief Secretary who sans any qualms declares that the “final outcome of the eviction case is not known.”

The Lokayukta should review its own order and let the people know when the final outcome of the eviction case against Achyut Samant was not known, how could the Chief Secretary allot the involved land to the alleged culprit.

Subash Chandra Patnaik is eminent Journalist of Odisha  , writes extensively  on various issues  relating to Odia literature, socio-political issues  of the State of Odisha in  his own website " orissamatters" 

High Court issued notice to Secretary and Former Director, Ambika Prasad Das of Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank on allegation of corruption

 

High Court issued notice to Secretary and Former Director, Ambika Prasad Das of Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank on allegation of corruption and undue favour granted in terms of release of advertisement worth lakhs of rupees   to Odisha Express

(Order of Lokayukta, Odisha in LY-725/2019 was challenged in the High Court)

  

While hearing a writ petition No. 8127 of 2022  filed  by Srikant Pakal, RTI Activist challenging order of Lokayukta, Odisha , Hon’ble High Court, Odisha has  issued notice dt. 8.4.22  to Lokayukta, Odisha ,  Secretary and former Director Ambika Prasad Das of Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha and  Managing Director, Odisha State Cooperative bank seeking response on allegation of undue favour and illegal payments made by OSCB and Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank  in terms of advertisement issued in favour of  “ Odisha Express “ , a newspaper  owned by Ambika Prasad Das  who was director of both  the Banks. 

 On 18.11.19,  Sri Srikant Pakal , RTI Activist had  filed  a complaint before  Lokayukta , Odisha  relying on    RTI information  that  Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank has provided lakhs of rupees  against advertisement in every year  a newspaper named “ Odisha Express”   which is  highest amount  compared to other agencies. For example, for advertisement of auction notice , the Bank has sanctioned  Rs. 25,000.00 to Sambad , largest circulated daily  in Odisha on 29.12.15 against allocation of Rs. 1,31,583.00 to Odisha Express , a small newspaper  dt. 8.12.15. Odisha Express has been given highest advertisement in comparison to other agencies.

 It was alleged that Sri Ambika Prasad Das who happens to be Executive Editor of the News Paper “Odisha Express” is also Director of this Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank. Using his power and position, he has influenced the bank officials and grabbed huge amount of money illegally from the Bank in the name of advertisement as exposed under RTI.  Srikant also  presented a round figure around Rs. 9  lakhs    given to Odisha Express  within period of 5 years highest in comparison to other Newspapers.

 Srikant Pakal has also appraised Lokayukata, Odisha referring order of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha dt. 14.2.19   who has directed to Managing Director, Odisha State Cooperative Bank  to disqualify Ambika Prasad Das  from Managing Committee of OSCB  on the inquiry report  submitted by DRCS, Khurda.  It was revealed  from the findings of the enquiry that “ Odisha Express , Newspaper  has been awarded  advertisement for publication of orders of arbitrators  in the Dispute case at the cost of Rs. 37,17, 758.00 for the period from 2008 to 2017. Managing Director, OSCB has shown highest inclination to the newspaper “ Odisha Express” wherein Sri Ambika Prasad Das  is the Executive Director. It has also been established in the inquiry report that  such business  transaction attracts disqualification  of a Director  as laid down  under section 28 (3)(f)  of OSC Act, 1962 ( No Individual shall , whether by himself or as a representative  of the society , be eligible  for being chosen  or for continuing as member  or the president or as the Vice-president , if any of the committee of the Society, if he  (f) is interested directly or indirectly in any contract made  with the society  or in any sale or purchase  made by the society  or in any contract  or transaction  of the society ( other than investment and borrowings ) involving financial interests, if the contract or transaction , sale or purchase be not complied.” On 15.2.2019, Managing Director, OSCB disqualified  Ambika Prasad Das for continuing as member of the Commission of Management of OSCB.

 Referring this inquiry report and order of RCS, Odisha, Srikant has demanded before Lokayukta, Odisha seeking legal action against Ambika Prasad Das and disqualify him from Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank.

 The Lokayukta , Odisha registered  complaint  ( LY- 725/2019) and issued  notice to Ambika Prasad Das  and Secretary, Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank  to reply on the allegation of the  complainant. Following series of hearings and order of the Lokayukta, respective submissions and counter-submissions were filed by Sri Ambika Prasad Das, Secretary, Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank   and complainant.

 Ambika Prasad Das in his counter-submission stated that all allegations are false and fabricated.  He presented copy of the letter of Cooperation department directing MD, OSCB to withhold disqualification of Ambika Prasad Das, document signifying Sri Das not being owner of Odisha Express and a three-member inquiry report of Cooperation Dept.  Which has given clean chit to Ambika Prasad Das which was alleged by complainant as an orchestrated inquiry conducted with intention to give clean chit to Sri Das.

 Hearing the arguments and counter-arguments from the both the sides, Lokayukta, Odisha directed both the parties to file comparative statements with regard to total amount paid to various newspapers towards advertisements by the Bank. Srikant Pakal filed a statement showing  that  between 2015 to 20.3.2019,  an amount of Rs. 8,96,382.00 ( including Rs. 3,30,184 towards publication of audited balance sheet for the year 2015 to 2018 which was specially and only given to Odisha Express) ) has been paid to Odisha Express  which is much more than the amounts paid to any other newspaper individually. Sri Das submitted  that Odisha Express has received from 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2020  Rs. 5,08,758 compared to Sambad ( Rs. 4,54,164.00) , Prameya ( Rs. 5,13,604.00),   Samay ( Rs. 1,17,354.00), Pragativadi ( 83,043.00) etc.  and kept secret about payments of Rs. 3, 30,184 . The Secretary, Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank has submitted dt. 12.3.2021 that it is statutory to get annual balance sheet of the Bank published in the Daily newspaper and that Odisha Express being the daily newspaper widely circulated and having its separate edition at Kendrapara , balance sheet was issued to it for publication. The Lokayukta  did not question  the logic presented by Bank  to select only Odisha Express for giving huge advertisement.  Lokayukta should have enquired   why Odisha Express was chosen when many newspapers like Sambad and Samaj has wider circulation in Kendrapara. Lokayukta did not verify whether Odisha Express has practically any separate edition in Kendrapara or for name’s sake or it is mentioned as separate edition in pen and paper.  As Lokayukta is empowered to conduct preliminary inquiry into allegation under section 20 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta Bench did not conduct any inquiry simply relied on Govt. inquiry report which was challenged before Lokayukta. Lokayukta Bench also didnot conduct inquiry when MD, Odisha State Cooperative Bank is disqualifying its Director under Odisha State Cooperative Societies  Act, how Department of Cooperation will grant stay order on direction of MD . There is no such provision under any Act to grant such stay on order of MD, OSCB. Though complainant presented this logic, Lokayukta did not hear   it taking plea that the content of complaint is related  to Kendrapara Urban Cooperative Bank.  Lokayukta , Odisha disposed  the case without passing any order for inquiry. Holding order of Lokayukta as arbitrary, Srikant Pakal approached High Court, Odisha for inquiry into the matter. High Court accepted the writ petition and issued notice dt. 8.4.22. to all opposite parties including Lokayukta for response.

 

Srikant Pakal

RTI Activist

M-6370216463