Service Record of Employees is Personal Information, Delhi High Court

 

Service  Records of Employees, Promotion and Financial Benefits  are personal  information  and  can not  be   disclosed  under  section 8 (1) (j)  of the RTI Act

 

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding writ petition held that the personal information of employees like service records, copies of promotion & financial benefits can't be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.     

 

                                                                                                                         

On April 19, 2017, respondent No. 3 submitted an RTI application. It was sent to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Directorate of Education (DoE), Delhi. The application requested various details about the service records of the staff at Ryan International School. It also sought information on their employment conditions.  The requested information included whether the school kept and updated service books for its employees. It also asked for details about the financial benefits given to employees according to government guidelines. Additionally, it requested copies of promotion and financial benefit orders, as well as copies of communications related to promotions and conduct related matters issued by the school to its employees.                                                     

 

 It was argued by the school that the information being sought was personal information about its employees. It claimed this information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This section protects personal information that does not serve a public interest and could invade privacy. It was further contended that it is a private unaided institution. Therefore, it did not fall under the definition of "public authority" as per the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. As a result, the school was not obligated to disclose the requested information including employee service records.     

 

 Unsatisfied with the school's response, respondent No. 3 filed a second appeal before the CIC. The CIC issued an order to the DoE. The order directed the DoE to use its regulatory powers. The CIC required the DoE to obtain the requested information from the school. The CIC ruled that the DoE, as a regulatory body, had a duty to oversee the functioning of all schools. This included private unaided schools. The CIC emphasized the need to ensure compliance with the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR), 1973.   The CIC emphasized that Ryan International School might not be a public authority under the RTI Act. However, the DoE was obligated to monitor and supervise the school's operations. The CIC held that the information sought by respondent No. 3 was related to the regulatory oversight of the DoE. Therefore, this information should be accessible through the DoE. This access to information is ensured under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR), 1973.

 

The CIC further stated that the DoE has the power and responsibility to ensure that schools comply with the DSEAR Act. The DoE serves as the supervisory and regulatory authority. The school's refusal to provide the requested information was based on its claim of being outside the RTI Act's scope. The CIC found this reasoning inadequate. The DoE must exercise its powers to collect the necessary information from the school. This information should then be made available to the applicant under the RTI Act.

 

Aggrieved by the CIC's order, Ryan International School filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the order passed by the CIC.   

 

                                                                                                                             

The Petitioner - Ryan International School, assails the order dated 14th May, 2019, passed by Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Petitioner to disclose information regarding the service details of its employees working in the Petitioner's school.   

                                                                                                                          

The Petitioner's  - (Ryan International School's),  contention  is that information which  was being directed to be disclosed by  the CIC is the  personal  information of  its employees, which is  exempted  from disclosure under  Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.  In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande   Vs.  Central Information Commissioner and Others [ (2013)   1SCC 212 )], which reads as follow:-       

 

12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

 

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

 

14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

 

15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act".                            -                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        - On the basis of above judgement  Apex Court, The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held 

                                                                                                                                 

The CIC has directed  the disclosure of information  which is entirely personal  information of employees and as such the information stands exempted  from disclosure under clause (j) of  Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Furthermore,  nothing has been brought on record  to show that larger  public interest  is involved which requires  the disclosure of such information even though it is exempted. The CIC has directed   the Directorate of  Education to call  upon schools under  its regulatory capacity to furnish certain information, however, the order did not consider the fact that the information sought pertained to sensitive personal information and service records of the employees of the school. Therefore, Iit was held by the High Court that the order dated 14th May, 2019 passed by the CIC, was unsustainable and accordingly  it was set aside by the court".  

 

 

Interpretation of Information under RTI Act

 Interpretation of “information”  under Section 2(f) and “right to information” Section 2(j) and Section 3 of The Right to Information Act,2005:-                                                                                                                                                         -

* The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another- Vs. -Aditya Bandopadhyay and  Ors.                  (2011) 8 SCC 497 whereby the Hon’ble  Supreme Court has held as under:-

 

 “63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This

is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the  definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses(f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public

authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only

refers to such material available in the records of the public  authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

-                                                                                                                                * “67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the

functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. 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  The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure

of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties”                            -                                                                                                       

 

    * Similarly,  Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in In case of Poorna Prajna Public School - Vs. - Central Information Commission & Ors. in WP(C). No. 7265/2018 decided on 25.09.2018, whereby this Court has held as under:-

-                                                                                                                           “8. Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) expands the definition to include

details or material which can be accessed under any other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously. The term “held by or under the control of

any public authority” in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term “information” as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term “information” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time

being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is “information” as defined

in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term “held by the or under the control of the public authority” used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public

authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body. A private body need not be a public authority and the said term “private body” has been used to

distinguish and in contradistinction to the term “public authority” as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is entitled to access, under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished.”       

 

 Thus,  it is settled rule  that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be assessed by public authority under any law for the time being inforce. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law,

 

it is “information‟ as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Thus, it is obligation on the public authority to get the information from the private body and furnish the same to the applicant”       

                                             -                                                                         

 In view of the above  observation in two decisions as referred above, PIO should verify that if the information is available  with the public authority and  can be accessed  by the public authority itself. If information is available and existing PIO can give such information within the parameters of RTI Act, 2005

Obligation of Public Authority under RTI Act

 

 Obligations of public authorities for disclosure of information under RTI Act

 

With regard to obligations of public authorities, it is necessary to refer to the statement of objects and reasons, the preamble and the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

 Statement of Objects and Reasons.

 In order to ensure greater and more effective access to information, the Government resolved that The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 enacted by the Parliament needs to be made more progressive, participatory, and meaningful. The National Advisory Council deliberated on the issue and suggested certain important changes to be incorporated in the existing Act to ensure smoother and greater access to information. The Government examined the suggestions made by  the National Advisory Council and others and decided to make a number of changes in the law. 

 The  important changes proposed to be incorporated, inter alia, include  establishment of an appellate machinery with investigating power to review decisions of the Public Information Officer; penal provisions for failure to provide information as per law; provisions to ensure  maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions, consistent with the constitutional provisions, and effective mechanism for access to information and disclosure by authorities, etc. 

  In view of significant changes proposed in the existing Act, the Government also decided to repeal The Freedom of Information Act, 2002. The proposed legislation will provide an effective framework for effectuating the right to information recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. 

  Right to Information Bill, 2005 seeks to achieve the above objectives.

 Thus, RTI Act was enacted in order to ensure smoother, greater and more effective access to information and provide an effective framework for effectuating the right of information recognized under Article 19(1)(a)  the Constitution. 

 The Preamble to the  RTI Act declares the object sought to be achieved by the RTI Act thus:- 

 " An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 

 Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic; And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

 And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal."

 Chapter II  of the Act, containing Sections 3 to 11  deals with right to information and obligations of public authorities. Section 3  provides for right to information and reads thus: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information." Section 3 of the RTI Act, is a sustentive Law  and makes it clear that the RTI Act  gives a right to a citizen to only access information, but not seek any consequential relief based on such information. 

 Section 4  deals with obligations of public authorities to maintain the records in the manner provided and publish and disseminate the information in the manner provided.  Section 4(1) states,--                                     

 (1) Every public authority shall--   

4(1)(a) maintain all its records duly catalogued, indexed and computerized, …

Section 4(1) (b)(i) to Section 4(1) (b)(xvii): Suo motu publish seventeen manuals regarding the details of organizations;

Section 4(1) (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;

Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 4  relating to dissemination of information enumerated in Section 4(1)(b) & (c) are given below:

 

 "(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information

.(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.

 (4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.

  Dissemination of Information should be available in local languages and PIO should have electronic copy of such information to give any citizen seeking such information on payment. Act in Section4(4) Explanation states,- "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.

 •  Case citation:-

 In this connection,  Delhi High  in the landmark judgement of  Registrar Of Companies & Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. Case No. W.P.(C) 11271/2009,  Decided on  1 June, 2012 has held that “Information which is held by a Public Authority can alone be provided to an applicant. Information which is already in the public domain has often been claimed as not being held by the Public authority”.  High Court of  Delhi  further observed as under:

 The said expression “held by or under the control of any public authority” used in section 2(j) of the RTI Act deserves a wider and a more meaningful interpretation. The expression “Hold” is defined in the Black’s Law dictionary, 6th Edition, inter alia, in the same way as “to keep” i.e. to retain, to maintain possession of, or authority over.

 “Para 37. Section 4(1)(a)  also lays emphasis on availability of recourses, when it talks about computerization of the records. Therefore, in the exploitation and implementation of the RTI Act,  a delicate and reasonable balance is required to be maintained. Nobody can go overboard or loose ones equilibrium and sway in one direction or assume an extreme position either in favour of upholding the right to information granted by the RTI Act,  or to deny the said right.

 38. The Supreme Court in The Institute of Chartered  Accountants of India Vs. Shanauk H. Satya & Others, Case No:  Civil Appeal No. 7571/2011 decided on 02.09.2011, observed that:

 "it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b)  and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act  will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."(emphasis supplied).

39. Therefore, if another statutory provision, created under any other law, vests the right to seek information and provides the mechanism for invoking the said right (which is also statutory, as in this case) that mechanism should be preserved and operated, and not destroyed merely because another general law created to empower the citizens to access information has subsequently been framed.

 40. Section 4 of the RTI Act obliges every public authority, inter alia, to publish on its own, information described in clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 4. Sub-clause (xv) of clause (b) obliges the public authority to publish "the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information ..... ..... .....". In the present case, the facility is made available - not just to citizens but to any person, for obtaining information from the ROC, under Section 610  of the Companies Act, and the Rules framed thereunder above referred to. Section 4(2)  of the RTI Act itself postulates that in respect of information provided by the public authority suo moto, there should be minimum resort to use of the RTI Act  to obtain information”.

 --Similarly,  the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 wherein it was held as under:-   

                                                   

“15.  On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, ‘right to information’ under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which is sought by the applicant”. 

 

Courtesy- Prabhat Giri, RTI Expert

Whether “Reason” is information ?

 

Whether “Reason” is    information ?

 A Two Judge Bench of The Bombay High Court  comprising Justice M.S. Sonak  and Justice Jitendra Jain on  17-10-2024 held that 'reasons for delay in taking a decision or deciding a case' cannot qualify to be  'information' as defined under Section 2(f)  of the Right To Information (RTI) Act and thus, one cannot ask 'reasons' in an RTI  application.                                                                                                                     

  A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the Secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), for failing to provide information of 'reasons for delayed decision' in a complaint filed by a litigant against an advocate.                                                           -                                                         

  Factual Background of the Case :-

According to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, one Paras Jain, a litigant had filed a complaint against advocate Shashank Thatte and two others, with the BCMG. He then filed an application under the RTI in March 2011 before the BCMG asking it to furnish details of the total number of disciplinary enquiries initiated against advocates from 2000 till March 2011. He further sought details on the status of his complaint against Thatte and also the reasons for the delay as such in deciding the said disciplinary enquiry.

 The BCMG then responded to Jain's plea with a letter stating that the information sought by him was vague and as far as reasons for the delay are concerned, the Secretary in its letter stated that 'there cannot be any reason for the delay and that the matter would be decided as and when it is taken on board.'

   Decision of the Central Information Commission :--

Taking exception to this order, Jain filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which dismissed his plea. He then moved the CIC seeking a relief and the CIC then passed an order on May 17, 2016 and a subsequent one on July 27, 2017 directing the BCMG to provide the information as sought by Jain. However, by a detailed order on September 18, 2017, the CIC noted the 'continued non-compliance' of its earlier order and also the absence of the Secretary from the hearing and sending his clerk to attend the proceedings. It therefore, noted that there has been a delay of more than 100 days in providing the requisite information to Jain and therefore, imposed costs of Rs 25,000 and also ordered an enquiry against the Secretary of the BCMG for not obeying its order.                                                                                                                                   

  The Matter Before Bombay High Court:-   

 The Bench  of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain refereed to   definition of "information" as  provided under Section 2(f) of the  RTI Act, which defines information as:                                                                                                                                   

  "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force";                                               

 On the premises of above definition, reason for the alleged delay  does not  constitute  definition of information coming under Section 2(f) to qualify as information. --                                                                                         

  "Therefore, the reasons for the alleged delay could not constitute information as defined under the Act. Reasons in many cases would be subjective. There may be disagreements on whether something constitutes reasons or in any case justifiable reasons. Therefore, the respondent (litigant) could not have asked for reasons for the 3 years delay in disposing of the preliminary enquiry against the concerned advocate,"

 the bench recorded in its order, passed on 17-10-2024. Therefore, for the grounds that the reasons were not submitted, the order imposing penalty of Rs 25,000 and disciplinary proceedings against Secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa could not have been ordered," the bench noted in its order.

 Further, the bench noted that the Secretary had given an explanation for not complying with the order citing bereavement in his family, however, the CIC 'ignored' the same.

 "The CIC did not consider this issue. However, before ordering any disciplinary enquiry or penalty, care has to be taken to ascertain whether defaults were intentional and Willful. The explanation offered has to be considered. We therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order," the bench said while quashing the order passed by the CIC on September 10, 2017.                             

 In view of the above decision of Bombay  High Court "reason for delay"  cannot be considered as information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.

 

By Pravat Giri , RTI Expert

Fact Finding Report on Attack on Ashok Pati

 

 Fact Finding Report on “inhuman behavior, brutal torture and merciless attack on RTI Activist and his wife by Anti-Socials 0f  Rasasori Gram Panchayat    in Dasarathpur Block of Jajpur district, Odisha

 

On 8^th November 24, the electronic media carried startling news showing a video about a woman being publicly manhandled, stripped, abused and tortured by a group of people   in Rasasori Gram Panchayat under Dasarathpur block of Jajpur district. It was reported that the people have gheraoed the house of RTI Activist Ashok Pati   with intention to drag him out from his house to murder him. As the wife of Ashok Pati resisted them, they dragged her, stripped and abused her publicly and threatened to murder her husband unless he refrains from filing RTI.   

Having been perturbed over the news and public resentment on this unfortunate incident, on 9.11.24, a fact-finding team of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan ( a Civil Society Group spearheading campaign for effective implementation of RTI Act in Odisha)  made  a visit to the spot to ascertain  the fact and  find out possible  ways  to intervene in the matter in order to provide justice to the affected RTI Activist and his family . On the way to Rasasori Gram Panchayat, native of Ashok Pati, it was reported from fellow-RTI Activists that the affected couple had been detained in Dasarathpur police station. So, the Team decided to move   straight to the Police station to meet the family rather than visiting his house.

The Team Members of Fact-finding Team

1.     Pradip Kumar Pradhan, M- 9937843482

2.     Sarbeswar Behura, M- 9437459949

3.     Hrudananda  Kodamasingh , M- 9337248512

4.     Simanta Kumar Patra, M-9937324725

( The Team members interacting with Ashok Pati  at dasarath Pur Police station) 

The Team reached Dasarathpur Police station by 2 o’clock. The Inspector-in-Charge was absent. On a phone call, he responded that he had come for inquiry into the said incident. The Team members along with local RTI Activists present there met   traumatized Ashok Pati, his wife and mother and interacted with them about the  unfortunate incident of 8^th Nov.

 

The untold story of a horrible incident narrated by Ashok Pati, RTI Activist and his wife is as follows.

Ashok Pati aged 29, an Auto-driver is survived by his wife, mother and a son of 17 months old. As a social activist, he used to file RTI to expose corruption and irregularities in development work undertaken in Rasasori Gram Panchayat from time to time. Having seen misappropriation of crores  of rupees  by  contractors and Biju Janata Dal workers making false bills without undertaking any work, he  filed 13 RTI Applications in the month of March and April, 2024  in the office  of Dasarath Pur Block and Rasasori Gram Panchayat  seeking information about implementation of 5T Renovation work in Sri Jagannath Vidya Mandir School, projects undertaken Mo Odisha-Nabin Odisha programme , works under Mo Pokhari Yojana, Pradhanmantri Awas Yojana  etc. Astonishingly, not a single RTI Application was compiled by the PIO. But he continued to pursue BDO, Dasarath Pur Block for supply of information by filing first appeals. The information which was supplied was again found false and misleading. The officials remained hell-bent not to vouch for a single information on the pretext of exposure of corruption and irregularities  publicly and started pressurizing him to withdraw RTI Application. Ashok again filed similar RTI in the name of his wife in the block office to get the  same information. His repeated filling of RTI Applications enraged BJD Top brass in the area and put them in mental tension. They started mounting pressure on Ashok to withdraw RTI Application apprehending that  huge corruption would be exposed , if information was supplied. But he undisturbedly continued his fight against corruption and demanded information. His relentless persuasion to access information put the administration in big trouble and payments against Bills  was stopped. Some development work  was  also  halted  due  to non-payments.   He also  filed  complaint to the Prime Minister’s office  seeking inquiry into corruption in development works. His  complaint petition  was  forwarded to  the Collector, Jajpur  who entrusted Deepak Acharya , estimator of DRDA for inquiry. It  was alleged  by Ashok Pati  that Sri Acharya without conducting inquiry put pressure on him to refrain from pursuing the matter and withdraw  the complaint.

This administrative embarrassment due to grinding halt  of various programmes in Gram panchayat prompted  Sri Shiba Prasad Rath , husband of Sarapanch of Rasasori Gram Panchayat  and others   to take  certain action against  Ashok Pati.  In July 2024,  they  masterminded filing  a false   dalit  atrocity  case , as generally seen  in many  RTI related  cases to silence RTI Activists,   in Dasarathpur Police station against Ashok Pati. The Police  registered  the  case and conducted an  inquiry. As it was a false  case, the police did not take  any action against him.

In August, 2024, hundreds of  people  mobilized  by Shiba Prasad Rath  gheraoed at  his home  and attacked him. He immediately made  a call  to the  police station and the  police  reached  on the spot and rescued him. It  was  reported  by him that  the behavior of police  mainly Sri Abhransu Kumar Mohanty  ASI,   was very humiliating. He misbehaved  with Ashok  while dealing with  the cases  filed against him.

( The Team members interacting with SDPO at DasarathPur Police station)

Despite huge pressure exerted upon him politically and administratively, Ashok did not bow down rather   continued to pursue RTI matters to access the information.  At last on 8.11.24, a mob of people and anti-socials of Biju Janata Dal led by Shiba Prasad Rath, husband of Sarapanch Gitanjali Dwivedi   gheraoed Ashok’s house at around 8 AM and  tried  to forcibly  entered his house  to drag him. His wife Lalita Pati resisted and did not allow them to enter her house. She locked her husband and resisted the  madding crowd of anti-socials. The tussle  continued  some time and atlast  at  the direction of Shiba Prasad Rath, these anti-socials dragged  Lalita Pati out of her house  to an open  field and nakedly tortured her by pushing and thrashing her repeatedly and stripped her publicly. After few hours , the police reached on the spot and rescued  them and  carried them ( Ashok Pati, his wife and mother and his 17 month old son)  to the police station but did not arrest anybody.

Discussion with Sri Satyabrata Lenka, SDPO, Jajpur

While  discussing the  incident, Sri Lenka  shared  a copy  of two FIRs filed  by Lalita Pati and Annapurna Pati and details of  action taken by the  police. The police  have  registered  two FIRs CC No.  164/24 and 165/24  under  Scand ST (Prevention of Atrocity)  Act on 8.11.24 and started investigation. Two accused  Dipti Ranjan panigrahi and Maheswar  Sethi alias Putuli  have been arrested . The police have formed three Teams  to arrest other accused. He assured  the Team  that  the police would arrest others in the course of the day.  The Main accused  who had masterminded  the attack  and whose name has been  reflected  in the FIR is Shiba Prasad Rath, a worker of Biju Janata Dal  has not been  arrested  till yet.

Over-all Analysis of occurrence of the incident

The incidence of attack on RTI Activist and his family members is not new to Odisha nor in Jajpur. On March 27, 2021, Sarbeswar Behura , RTI Activist of Dharmashala block  of Jajpur district was bomb-attacked by supari killers engaged  by BJD Mining Mafia . He narrowly escaped. Similarly,  a group of 50 people  of Pramila Mallik, MLA of Biju Janata Dal ( BJD)   attacked Simant Kumar Patra  , RTI Activist of Binjharpur block of Jajpur district in his residence early morning and stripped him and paraded him  nakedly in  the village.  Four RTI Activists were murdered  for  their  fight against  corruption by BJD hooligans.   It  is one  of  many incidents of attacks on RTI Activists in the state. During the  corrupt  regime of Nabin Patnaik of  24 years, more  than 100 RTI Activists have been  mercilessly attacked , beaten up , family members have been traumatized , murdered and put  in jail for false cases. Despite state-sponsored organized attacks  of  BJD workers on RTI Activists  across the  state , RTI Activism  has not  died out. Rather  Activism has been geared up and RTI Activists and  the  common  people  have taken it  as a challenge and   dared  to use RTI to  expose  corruption  and fought  relentlessly  against  the people, leaders of Biu Janata Dal   who are involved  in corruption. They  have also filed  a number of complaints  in Lokayukta, Odisha seeking an inquiry into alleged  corruption in various development works.

The incident of attack on Ashok Pati, RTI Activist is  part of a   large conspiracy of  Corrupt political leaders and Contractors of Biju Janata Dal of that locality  and block  administration to silence him and refrain him from pursuing RTI matters. We  take   this  incident  very  seriously  and  make  the  following  recommendation to  Govt.  to  take  immediate  steps in order to give justice  to the family of Ashok Pati  as well as  protection of RTI Activists  across the state.

1.   All  the people involved  in the attack  on Ashok Pati and his wife  should be arrested  and put in jail  immediately. Though  the Police  has arrested  four people as reported in media , the main accused  Shiba Prasad Rath  has not been  arrested. It is heard  that  the police are  trying to protect him.

 

2.   Ashok Pati  had  filed a  complaint to  the Prime Minister’s office seeking an inquiry into corruption in DasarathPur Block. This  complaint  was referred to the Collector, Jajpur for inquiry. Sri Deepak Acharya , Estimator of DRDA, Jajpur  was entrusted  to conduct inquiry into the matter. Without conducting any inquiry, he pressured  Ashok Pati to compromise with BJD people and Contractors.  We recommend to Govt. to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.

 

3.   As  the  corruption and misappropriation of  funds  in Govt. work has become order of the day,  not only RTI Activists but  the  common people are using RTI to expose it . The corrupt officers , Mafia and contractors getting  affected  by  their  exposure   are adopting various tricks  to   threaten  them. In this situation , life of RTI Activists is in danger. We , therefore Request  State Govt. mostly Director General of Police to issue  necessary  directions to all police stations  to take quick action  on the  complaint ever  filed in context of any form of  attack or violence  on RTI Activists. The prompt police action no doubt helps RTI Activists to work  for  the people  and fight  against  corruption without fear.  

 

4.   It is seen that  the  identity of RTI Applicants are  exposed  by  the PIO and other officials to the contractors and other affected  people.   They  easily identify RTI Applicants and try to influence them or threaten them.  The   identity of RTI Applicant   is identified  from Identity proof i.e, voter ID Card/ ADHAR Card submitted  by applicants during filling of RTI Application. The practice of this provision in Odisha is illegal  under RTI Act. The Section 6(2) of RTI Act clearly stipulates  that  no identity proof  is required except  contact address  for  Information seekers  while  filing RTI Application. So, we  recommend the State Govt. to withdraw  the said provision and accordingly amend Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 in  compatibility with section 6(2) of RTI Act.  

 

5.   As  the incidence of attack on RTI Activists  has become order of the day,  we recommend  State Govt.  to enact Whistleblowers’ Protection Act  for  security  of RTI Activists and their family members.

 

Report prepared  by

 

 

Pradip Kumar Pradhan

State Convener

Plot No-S-82, Maitree Vihar

Post-Rail Vihar, Bhubaneswar

M-9937843482