Public
Hearing
On
“Mal-functioning of Odisha Information
Commission”
A Report
Venue- Lohia Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Date- 22.8.25
Organised by
: Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (OSAA)
Plot No. 101, Madhusudan Nagar, Bhubaneswar
Contact No.- 6370216463
Public
Hearing on “Mal-functioning of Odisha Information Commission”
A
Report
1.
Introduction
Right to Information Act which came into force w.e.f. 12th October,
2005 has empowered the citizens to exercise their fundamental right to
information by accessing information from the public authorities. The preamble
of the RTI Act states “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.” The
20 years of implementation of RTI Act has witnessed massive use of RTI Act by a
cross section of the people in seeking various types of information, demanding
accountability from the public authorities and enforcing
transparency in the administration. Many have used it as the biggest tool to
fight against corruption.
RTI Act has mandated independent functioning on Information Commission
with wide-ranging powers including hearing and disposing complaint/ Second
Appeal Cases, requiring Public Authorities to supply information,
directing for inquiry in case there is some reasonable grounds, imposing
penalty on erring PIOs, directing Public Authorities for awarding
compensation to aggrieved appellants/complaints, preparing Annual Report and
recommending Public Authorities for bringing necessary changes to
comply provisions of RTI Act.
Since 2006, Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (OSAA), a
platform of Civil Society Groups and RTI Activist working for effective
implementation of RTI Act in Odisha has been conducting massive
awareness programme to sensitize the people about RTI Act, their
right to access information and procedure to be followed for filing RTI
Applications, Appeals and Complaints. Besides that, OSAA also undertakes
monitoring of functioning of the Information Commission periodically in the
form of organizing Public Hearing, analysing disposed SA and Compliant cases,
publishing reports and sharing to all stake-holders as a matter of
transparency.
This public hearing was organized on 22.8.25 in Lohia Academy,
Bhubaneswar, capital city of Odisha as part of on-going efforts
to debate and discuss issues relating to functioning of the Information
Commissioners appointed in April, 2025, effectiveness and standard of orders
passed by the Chief Information Commissioner and other five Information
Commissioners, issues relating to procedure followed for hearing and
disposal of cases and transparency maintained in the office of Information
Commission.
It deserves to mention here that a lot of issues were raised
in public domain and social media about mal-functioning of Information
Commissioners like arbitrary dismissal of 800 cases without hearing, issuing
absurd notice in 6000 cases to appellant seeking their
willingness whether they want their cases to be heard, lack of knowledge about
provisions of RTI Act , display of inefficiency during hearing of the case,
mindless orders passed by the Commission etc. disposing the cases
without ensuring presence of PIO and FAA, non-imposition of penalty on erring
PIO etc.
2.
Proceedings of the Public Hearing
The Public Hearing
started with Pradip Kumar Pradhan, State Convener, Odisha Soochana Adhikar
Abhijan (OSAA) delivering welcome address and introductory remarks about
objective of the public hearing, followed
by presentation made by RTI Activists
and aggrieved Appellants/Complainants. Around 150 participants hailed from different
districts had participated in the Public Hearing. Sri
Rabi Das, Senior Journalist, Sri Satya Prakash Nayak, Journalist, Mrs. Anjali
Bhardwaj and Miss Amrita Johari from NCPRI, New Delhi, Azad Hind Panigrahi,
retired Law Officer, Govt. of Odisha, Sri Sibanand
Roy, Senior Advocate were present in
the meeting and shared their views/ opinion/ recommendation to Govt. List of participants who presented
critical issues about functioning of the Commission is attached as Annexture-1.
3. Important issues
pertaining to mal-functioning of Information Commission presented in the Public
Hearing.
3.1.
Arbitrary dismissal of 800 Complaint cases and Second
Appeal cases by the Commission without hearing.
Sri Pratap Mohanty and
Archer Ardhendu Narayan Behera, RTI Activists presented the information
obtained dt. 21.7.25 from the office and Odisha Information Commission under
RTI Act and said that the Commission had mindlessly dismissed 800 Complaint
cases without hearing. The details is as
follows. (Annexture-2)
|
Name of SCIC
and SIC |
Total no. of
cases dismissed without hearing during period of May to July, 2025 |
|
Manoj Parida, SCIC |
259 |
|
Sushant Mohanty, SIC
|
14 |
|
Jagannath Rath, SIC |
242 |
|
Pranabandhu Acharya,
SIC |
68 |
|
Pabitra Mandal, SIC |
130 |
|
Kalpana Patnaik, SIC
|
88 |
|
Total |
801 |
As per Odisha Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2006
{Rule-6(4)}, “the Commission
shall not reject the complaint, unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard
is given to the complainant. They also presented that
many complainants have gone to High Court against the decision of the
Commission. Mrs. Nibedita Roy who had filed complaint on 29.9.2021
against the PIO, Office of Chauliganj Police station, Cuttack for denial of
information about FIR filed against his husband and CCTV Footage, was found her
case (CC No. 850/21) dismissed by the Commission without hearing on 3.5.25.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Commission, she filed a writ petition
No. 15566/25 before Hon’ble High Court, Orissa challenging the said decision.
On 21.7.25, the High Court taking cognizance of the Writ petition issued notice
to the Information Commission for reply (Anexture-3).
3.2.Subash Pradhan, RTI Activist of Balasore district said in the public hearing
that his five no. of important complaint cases filed by him ( CC No. 841/21,
532/21, 960/21, 799/21, 800/21) were dismissed by the Sri Manoj Parida, SCIC
without hearing. While rejecting complaint cases , the Commission in its order
referred the judgement of Supreme Court on State Information
Commission, Manipur vs State of Manipur in Civil Appeal case No. 10787-10788 of
2011). But in this judgement, the hon’ble Apex Court has never
passed any order for closing the cases filed under section 18 of
the RTI Act without hearing. The Commission has misinterpreted the judgement of
the Supreme Court and dismissed the cases mindlessly. Almost all
Information Commissioners are law-ignorant persons and hardly have any
expertise to hear the cases and interpret the law. He also said that many
citizens have approached the hon’ble High Court, Orissa for quashing the
illegal decision passed by the Information Commissioners. Taking cognizance
of these cases, the High Court has issued notice to Odisha Information
Commission seeking reply.
It was recommended that the Commission should hear all the dismissed 800
cases and provide justice to the complainants/ appellants.
3.3.Illegal and
arbitrary notice issued by the Information Commission for closure of 6000
Complaint and Second Appeal cases
Srikant Pakal, RTI Activist
along with many aggrieved citizens flagged off this issue of trend of
closure of cases initiated by the Information Commission in thousand
numbers and presented it in the public hearing showing a copy of
notice issued to them by the Information Commission. It is mentioned that “The
full Commission in the meeting dated 13.6.25 reviewed the pending cases in the
Commission. It was noted that there are nearly 6000 cases, pertaining to year
2021 and 2022 which are waiting for hearing. It was noted that during hearing
many of the appellants are neither appearing nor seeking adjournment. X xx x x
x x. The Commission has decided to dispose of all these old pending cases and
second appeal/complaint as closed unless the appellant/ complainant
specifically wishes to continue the matter. The appellant is requested to
inform the Commission on or before 15th August, 2025 if he wishes to
continue the matter. Such intimation can be sent to the Commission by ordinary
post or e-mail.” They said that this notice is itself
illegal and arbitrary in the eye of law as there is no such
provision in the RTI Act or Odisha RTI Rules for issuing notice to the
appellant/complainant seeking their willingness for continuity of discontinuity
of the cases or closure of the cases without hearing. As per Odisha
Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2006 – {Rule-9(3)}, “ where
the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to
which the appellant or complainant is being prevented from
attending the hearing of the Commission, then the Commission may afford
the appellant or the complainant as the case may be, another
opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other
action as it may deem fit.” Many people could not
understand such a type of letter as they have never seen in the last twenty
years of the functioning of the Commission. Some appellants and complainants
have written letters expressing their willingness for hearing of their cases.
They demanded that the notices issued to the appellant/complainant
are completely illegal and need to be withdrawn. Sri Archer Ardhendu Narayan
Behera said that the arbitrary closure of the cases by the Commission without
hearing is (i) violation of fundamental right of the Citizens- Article
19(1)(a) guarantees the right to information, (b) Violation of RTI Act-The Act
does not empower the Commission to close complaints without hearing the
complainants, (c ) evading statutory duties- denying transparency and
accountability. This issue was debated and discussed at length
and everybody demanded its withdrawal.
3.4.Sri Pradip Pradhan, RTI Activist filed RTI Application dated 17.7.25 in
the office of Odisha Information Commission seeking copy of the proceedings of
the meeting of the Commission held on 13.6.25 in which the Commission reviewed
the pending cases and total no. of cases in which notice has been issued to the
appellants and complainants till date of supply of information. On 25.7.25.,
the PIO replied that “such information was not available. The full
Commission meets every week on Friday to informally discuss office related
matters and decisions, if any, are taken verbally. On 13.6.25, the full
Commission met in their usually weekly meeting to discuss official matters. No
formal or official minutes were as such issued.” As the Commission is
quasi-judicial body and general superintendence of the Commission lies with the
state Chief Information Commission under section 15 (4) of the RTI Act, the
Commission should maintain proper reporting, when it takes any vital decision
affecting the citizens. The said information should be proactively disclosed
under section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
It was recommended that the Odisha Information Commission should
immediately withdraw this notice and hear all the 6000 cases by
providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
3.5.Denial of
information by the Information Commission- A threat to transparency
The
Information Commission is the guardian of transparency. It has
been constituted to protect law and enforce transparency in the system. But it
was found that since the last four months, the office of the Information
Commission has rejected several RTI requests citing various so-called grounds
like section 8 (1)(j) which are unwarranted and undesirable. Few
cases presented by Information Seekers are as follows.
a. Sri Tanay Mohanty, RTI
Activist, Balasore had filed RTI Application in the office of Odisha
Information Commission seeking information about total amount spent for
renovation and reconstruction work in the office of Odisha Information
Commission, name of the agency selected to carry out the work, details of
payments made so far to vendors etc. In response to RTI Application, the PIO
responded on dated 20.6.25 that “the information sought for is under
examination. More time is required for the supply of information”. Again,
on 26.6.25., the PIO replied that more time is required for supply of
information. Finally, on 7.7.25, the PIO replied that the said information
cannot be supplied on the grounds of section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Tanay Mohanty had filed first appeal before the First Appellate
Authority seriously objecting the ground taken by the PIO for
non-supply of information and seeking direction for supply of information.
b. Maheswar Mohanty, RTI Activist, Mayurbhanj shared his experience with
the Information and said that he had filed RTI Application dated 16.6.25 in the
office of Odisha Information Commission seeking information about details of
LTC (Leave Travel Concession) availed by two Information Commissioners Sri
Sushant Kumar Mohanty and Sri Jagannath Rath, total amount received by them,
details of expenses made for each work/project during the year 2024-25 and
balance amount. On 7.7.25, the PIO refused to supply the information on point
No.1 relating to LTC on the ground of section 8(1)(J) of the RTI Act and
provided incomplete information on point no.2. Sri Maheswar Mohanty filed first
appeal dated 14.7.25 seeking direction to the PIO for supply of information.
But the FAA rejected the first appeal upholding decision of PIO. On 12.8.25, he
filed a second appeal against the PIO, office of Odisha Information before
Odisha Information for justice.
c. On 17.7.25., Pradip Kumar Pradhan submitted RTI Application dated
17.7.25 in the office of Odisha Information Commission seeking copy of Complaint case
registered as CC No. 475/2021) and Second Appeal petition registered as SA No.
1964/21 in the Commission along with all annexures submitted by me and copy of
decision passed by the Commission duly authenticated by PIO4. Provide a copy of
Complaint petition along with all annexures (Case No. 370/2021) filed by me
which was disposed on 7th May 2025 and copy of Second Appeal petition along
with all annexures. As Sri Pradip Pradhan could not trace out his
complaint and Second Appeal Cases, he had sought it from the Commission by
filling RTI. Astonishingly, on 31.7.25, the PIO refused to supply the
information stating that” the said information is not information under
section 2(j) of the RTI Act. As the document having originated from the
applicant and filed by himself should be custodian. In such circumstances, the
applicant is not entitled to receive copies of these documents as a matter of
right. The stand has already been decided in the Commission ‘s decision dated
21.11.2013 in SA No. 770/2012.” Sri Pradhan also questioned how the
copy of complaint and Second Appeals will not be shared to the complainant/
appellant himself when the document belongs to him. Sri Pradhan also shared his
experience that as an RTI Activist, he had not received such type of response
from the Commission in his career.
d. Sri Amitav Chand, RTI Use of Kendrapara district shared how he has been
harassed by the PIO of Odisha Information Commission. On 7.6.25, he had
submitted an RTI Application in the office of the Information Commission
seeking information about details of utilization of contingency funds and copy
of Bill and vouchers. Showing a blank Form-C (intimation of rejection) ,
he said that the PIO has rejected RTI Application citing no ground. He
said that the PIO has deliberately sent me such a
letter to harass me. If the office of the Commission will harass the
applicant, how the Commission will enforce transparency and protect law.
Both the Information Commissioners and their staff do not have minimum respect
to the law and are very careless towards the RTI Act. It deserves to mention
here that Form-C (Intimation for rejection) has been prescribed by Odisha RTI
Rules, 2005 with various grounds mentioned for rejection of RTI Application,
though there is no such provision under RTI Act. But here the PIO has not
mentioned any ground for rejection of RTI Application.
4.1.Chand, Social Activist, Kendrapara
Amitav
Chand, Social Activist of Ramnagar village of Kendrapara district presented his
case of tragedy, harassment and humiliation by the Information Commission in
his pursuit to get information under RTI Act. Despite his long fight of five
years, he could not get information. He said that on 24.2.20, he had submitted
an RTI in the office of Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack seeking
information relating to a copy of H.S.C Certificate and marksheet of Arun Kumar
Dhara studying in B.K. Academy, Saharia of Kendrapara district. As the PIO and
the First Appellate Authority did not respond to RTI Application and first
appeal respectively, he filed Second Appeal before Odisha Information
Commission for Justice. His case was registered as SA No. 1773/2020. Sri Bikram Senapati, the then
State Information Commissioner fixed the date 30.6.22 for hearing. As the PIO
remained absent without any submission, the Information Commission fixed
another dated 2.9.22 for hearing. As the PIO did not respond,
the Commissioner Sri Senapati fixed another date 12.10.22 for hearing. As the PIO
again remained absent after notice being issued thrice, Sri Bikram Senapati,
the State Information Commissioner, was constrained to impose a penalty Rs.
25,000 on PIO and awarded compensation Rs. 25,000 to the appellant and directed
the PIO to supply the information within 15 days. Despite the order of the
Commission, the PIO, Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack did not supply any
information, even the Chairman, BSE refused to comply with the order of the
Commission. He again filed a complaint dated 10.12.22 before Odisha Information
Commission to take action against the PIO as well as authority of Board of
Secondary Education, Cuttack for non-compliance of the order of the Commission.
After three years, Sri Jagannath Rath, State Information
Commissioner fixed date 25.6.25 for hearing of Complaint case No.
1298/2022. After getting notice from the office of the Commission, he
sent a written submission describing how he has been getting harassed for 5
years to get the information. On 25th June, 2025, the
Commission heard the case. During the hearing of the case, the PIO who was
present in the hearing, raised the issue of personal information and refused to
supply the information. The Information Commissioner Sri Jagannath Rath did not
ask anything about non-compliance of the order of the Commission passed on
12.10.22. nor sought any opinion from the complainant on the
issue raised by the PIO. The Commission also did not consider the written
submission filed by him. The Commission rejected his complaint
without making an inquiry into it. He has submitted a
complaint before Governor, Odisha under section 17 of the RTI Act seeking
inquiry against Jagannath rath, SIC for infirmity of his mind and his
incapacity to hear and adjudicate the case.
4.2.Dusmant Acharya, RTI Activist, Kendrapara
This is the case of unruly behaviour of
Sri Manoj Parida, state Chief Information Commissioner shown to Dusmant Acharya
and mindless dismissal of SA case by Sri Parida without understanding the
essence of RTI Act.
This
case was presented in the public hearing by Sri Pratap Mohanty, RTI Activist on
behalf of Dusmant Acharya. He could not attend the hearing due to his prolonged
illness. Extract of his presentation is as follows.
On 16.5.25, Dusmant Acharya visited the Commission’s Office to attend the hearing of his Second Appeal Case No. 1931/2021. He reached at 11.45 am a little bit late due to a long journey from remote Rajkanika block of Kendrapara district to Bhubaneswar by bus and heard the news of Sri Manoj Parida, SCIC closed. He was astonished how the hearing was closed within just 45 minutes. On inquiry, it was found that Sri Manoj Parida just fixed 10 cases for hearing and did not hear anything. just asked about cases and closed it. He went to his officer chamber to discuss his case. When he entered into his chamber, he found Sri Parida surrounded by his outside guests and relaxing over a cup of tea and gossiping. It was like a big tea party hosted by Sri Parida. When he entered his office chamber, Sri Parida got angry and started behaving like a colonial master. Sri Parida started charging Dusmant in high tone saying “do you think the court will run on your own wish. Why are disturbing”. Then he said whenever I came for a hearing years ago, I got late due to long distance and former Information Commissioners provided me with an opportunity for hearing. He did not listen to anything and never tried to understand his problem. He got humiliated and returned with no discussion about the outcome of the hearing and any order, if any passed by the Commission.
Having been humiliated, Sri Dusmant Acharya filed a complaint dt. 12.6.25 before the Hon’ble Governor under section 17 of the RTI Act seeking legal action against Sri Parida. In the meantime, he received the copy of the decision of the Commission and found it closed without any order for supply of information. Then Sri Dusmant filed a writ petition in Orissa High Court challenging the decision of the State Chief Information Commissioner. Hearing writ petition no.21179 of 2025, the hon’ble Court passed order dt. 8.8.25 directing to petitioner Dusmant Acharya to file an application before the commission for recall of impugned order and the Commission will hear the case giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the case as per the law.
4.3.Sarbeswar Behura, RTI Activist, Jajpur
Sarbeswar Behura presented how Sri Manoj Parida, State Chief Information Commissioner mindlessly disposed of his second appeal cases without ensuring information. The cases presented by him as follows.
0n
12.10.20., he had submitted an RTI Application in the office of Tahasildar,
Dharmashala, Jajpur district seeking information relating to mining leases
granted to lease holders. The PIO and the First Appellate Authority did not
respond to his application and first appeal respectively. Then he filed a
second appeal dt. 4.2.21 before the Information Commission for justice. After
four years the State Chief Information Commissioner fixed the date
9.6.25 for hearing of SA No. 245/21. During the hearing, neither the PIO nor
the First Appellate Authority was present. They also did not file any
submission. Sarbeswar appeared before the Commission and said that he had not
yet received any information. He also appealed to the Commission to fix another
date for hearing and impose penalty on PIO for non-supply of information.
The Commission was assured to pass appropriate orders. When he
received the order, it was found that the Commission had closed the
case stating that the information had been supplied and no penalty on PIO is
required. But he has not received any information. Four years’ struggle
to get justice ended in vain.
Sarbeswar said that similar kind of impugned orders in SA No. 561/21, 562/21, 131/21 passed by Sri Manoj Parida without ensuring information. In all these cases, neither PIO nor FAA appeared before the Commission. Sri Parida also did not issue show cause notice due to their non-appearance. These are the most useless and third grade orders of the Commission ever passed during the previous period of the Chief Information Commissioners.
4.4.Pradip Kumar Pradhan, RTI Activist, Bhubaneswar
a.While sharing his
experience about issues relating to hearing of disposal of cases by the
Information Commission, Sri Pradhan showed copy order of two cases passed
by Sri Manoj Parida and how the orders of the Commission are substandard
and mindlessly written without application of mind. He presented the order of
the Commission passed in SA Case No. 2329/21. The exact text of the order is
presented below
“ 1. The matter pertains to the year 2021
2. Both the parties are
absent.
3. The respondent had
committed in an earlier case, on the same subject that the necessary
information will be provided to the appellant on or before, 30.5.24. This may
be done by registered post.
4. Hence, the second appeal is disposed and matter closed at
Commission’s level”
This was a case about denial of information by the PIO and FAA of
Department of General Administration and PG, Govt. of Odisha. The information
was about leasing out land to a private education
institution. The Commission was expected to hear the case in length
by ensuring presence of both the parties and allowing sharing of their
respective submissions each other and conduct an inquiry whether earlier order
of the Commission complied by the PIO and passed appropriate order with direction
for supply of information after hearing from the appellant and impose penalty
on PIO for non-supply of information under section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
But on 19.5.25., the Commission did not hear anything and simply passed an
order which does not carry any meaning.
b.He
shared another case of impugned order passed by Sri Manoj Parida.
The text of SA Case no. 1964/21.
1. The matter
pertains to the year 2021
2. The appellant was
absent. However, he had submitted his written submission. The respondent
Maheswar Sethy, PIO-cum-AIG, office of Director, Vigilance, Odisha is present.
3. On perusal of available
records, I find that the information sought have already been supplied by the
respondent.
4. The present second appeal is therefore dismissed and matters closed
at Commission’s level. “
Sri
Pradhan said that he could not understand the content and meaning of this
decision. This was a case of Second Appeal filed against PIO
and FAA of Director Vigilance, Cuttack. The information sought for allegations
of vigilance cases against Class-1 officers. The PIO refused to provide the
information. The Commission was expected to enquire why and how the
information will be denied and on which ground. The Commission also should note
down details of submission and argument filed by the parties and the
commission's final order after analyzing details of content of information and
eligibility for supply of information or not. But the order passed by the
Commission carried no meaning and was completely useless without application of
mind. Sri Pradhan also shared few more cases how Sri Manoj Parida
4.6.Large-scale
complaint against Jagannath Rath, estranged Information Commissioner, alleged
by the appellants
Srikant Pakal, RTI Activist made
series of serious allegations against Sri Jagannath Rath, SIC describing
him as most useless Information Commissioner in history of functioning of Odisha
Information Commission. He shared his experience with Sri Jagannath Rath during
hearing of the cases, his ruthless behaviour
and defaming appellant and complainant during hearing of the cases. He does not hear the cases
properly rather misbehaved the appellants and discouraged them from filling RTI Applications
4.7.Denial of
information by the office of Odisha Information Commission itself - A conscious
move towards secrecy and threat to transparency.
The basic essence of
RTI Act which has been held by many Courts is that “supply of
information is the Rules and exemption is exception”. The
Information Commission which is the guardian of RTI Act and functions with
mandate to enforce transparency and accountability in the administration, is
found embroiled in denial of information to the information-seekers. Few cases
presented in the Public Hearing are as follows.
Maheswar Mohanty of
Mayurbhanj district had submitted
RTI Application dt. 16.6.25 in the office of Odisha Information Commission
seeking information relating to LTC (Leave Travel Concession) availed by
Sushant Mohanty and Jagannath Rath, State Information Commissioner and total
amount received by them, details of expenses made for each work undertaken out
of sanctioned amount of Rs. 5.43 crore and total balance amount. On 7.7.25, the
PIO responded denying the supply of information about
LTC citing the ground as personal information
under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and supplying incomplete information on
point no.2. On 14.7.25, Sri Maheswar filed first appeal before the FAA
objecting to the response of PIO on the following ground.
a.
“The information about
expenses made towards LTC of the Information Commissioners are not the nature
of the personal information. The expenses are made from state
exchequer which is taxPayers money. The mandate of RTI Act is
to empower citizens to access information relating to expenses of
even a single pie made from state exchequer. While adjudicating
Second Appeal Case No. 1271/22 (Pradip Pradhan VS PIO, Odisha State Cooperative
Bank), the Information Commission has taken a view that “
the information with regard to medical reimbursement though personal but
relates to transparency and public interest. Sometimes employees make
medical reimbursement by submitting false bills and by that process public
money is misutilised. a citizen has the right to know about proper utilization
of public money. Larger public interest is in fact involved”. So the
information about LTC expenses is not personal and does not qualify to be
rejected under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The PIO with malafide
intention has denied the information.
b.
On point No. 2 and 3
(details of expenses made
for each work/Project and total balance amount following budget provision
of Rs. 5.43 crores), the PIO remained silent and did not provide any
information. It is alleged that the PIO deliberately kept the information
secret.”
c.
The FAA passed the
order by upholding the decision of the PIO. On 12.8.25, Maheswar filed Second
Appeal before Odisha Information Commission for urgent hearing and supply of
information.
4.8. Tanay Mohanty, RTI Activist, Balasore
submitted RTI
Application dt. 26.5.25 in the office of Odisha Information
Commission, Bhubaneswar seeking information
about total amount spent for renovation and reconstruction work in
the office of Odisha Information Commission. On 26.6.25, the PIO responded
seeking more time for supply of information. Astonishingly, on 7.7.25,
the PIO rejected the RTI Application under section 8 (1) ( j) of the RTI Act.
On 6.8.25, he filed first appeal. 6.8.25 before First Appellate Authority of
the Commission stating that the information sought for mostly comes under suo
moto disclosed information. No personal information is involved. Expenses made
for construction of work is not personal information. After twenty years of
implementation of RTI Act, the office of Information Commission whose mandate
is to ensure transparency, is found maintaining secrecy about its own state of
affairs on some useless ground.
4.9. Sri Pradip Pradhan, RTI Activist, Bhubaneswar had submitted RTI
Application in the office of Odisha Information Commission seeking copy of Complaint case
registered as CC No. 475/2021 and Second Appeal petition registered as SA No.
1964/21 in the Commission along with all annexures submitted by him and copy of
decision passed by the Commission duly authenticated by PIO4. Provide a copy of
Complaint petition along with all annexures (Case No. 370/2021) filed by me
which was disposed on 7th May 2025 and copy of Second Appeal petition along
with all annexures. On 31.7.25, the PIO sent a ridiculous reply that “the
information sought for is not information under section 2(j) of the RTI Act. As
the document having originated from the applicant and filed by himself should
be custodian. In such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get
copies of these documents as matter of right x x x x>” This is such
a useless response that the office of the Commission has made ever to any
applicant within 20 years of its functioning. To access
documents submitted by anybody in any court is the fundamental right of
the same person who seeks a copy of it. There is no bar to supply the
information.
5.Presentation
by Jury Members and Recommendations
Sri Rabi Das, Senior Journalist, Sri Satya Prakash
Nayak, Journalist, Mrs. Anjali Bhardwaj and Miss Amrita Johari from NCPRI, New
Delhi, Azad Hind Panigrahi, retired Law Officer, Govt. of Odisha,
Sri Sibanand Roy, Senior Advocate were present in the meeting as
Jury members and shared their views/ opinion/ recommendation to Govt. after
making patient hearing to the presentation made by the people. All the Jury
members thanked OSAA for organizing such a fantastic public hearing to debate
and discuss various issued pertaining to functioning of Odisha Information
Commission. The gist of the recommendation of Jury members is as follows.
A. It is good
practice to monitor functioning of Odisha Information Commission. As per
section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Information Commission is a Public Authority
and duty bound to supply information to the Information-seekers, when RTI
Applications are filed. In respect transparency, the office of the Information
Commission should be role model before all the Public Authorities. But here it
has been alleged by many participants that the office of Information Commission
is refusing to supply the information to the Information-Commissioner which is
a gross violation of RTI Act. The Jury members recommended to the State
Chief Information Commissioner to look into the matter seriously and
adher to the objectives of the RTI Act. The information which has been
kept secret should be supplied at the earliest in order to ensure transparency
in the functioning of Odisha Information Commission.
B. It was learnt
that the Information Commission has dismissed 800 complaint cases unilaterally
without hearing. This is not only gross violation but also against the
objective of the RTI Act. This is also a violation of the principle of natural
justice. The Jury feels that the Information Commissioners appointed by
the Govt. are illiterate about provisions of the RTI Act and Odisha Information
Commission (appeal procedure) Rules, 2006. So it is recommended that the
Information Commission should hear all the 800 Complaint cases which has been arbitrarily
dismissed and provide justice to the affected-citizens.
C. It was
highlighted by the participants in the Public Hearing that the office of
Information Commission has written a letter to the appellants/complainants
seeking their willingness whether they want hearing of their cases or not by 15th
August, 25. If the appellants or complainants do not respond, all the 6000
cases will be dismissed. This letter itself shows arbitrariness of the
Commission and blatant violation of the RTI Act. The RTI Act
does not empower the Information Commission to write such type of
letter. As per section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act, the Information Commission, on
receipt of complaint/ Second Appeal will hear and dispose of it as per the law
and ensure justice to the Citizens. It is recommended that all 6000 cases
should be heard and disposed of by the Commission.
D. The decision/
order passed by the Information Commissioners suffer from a lot of
incongruities, grammatical error, lack of any analysis and interpretation of
the law etc. The cases are disposed of without ensuring information.
It shows that the State Chief Information Commissioners and other
Information Commissioners lack minimum understanding about the provisions of
the Act and also do not have expertise and experience to hear the cases.
Many Information Commissioners do not know abcd of RTI Act. So it
is recommended that for better functioning of the Commission, the State
Govt. should make a provision with sanctioning special
fund for sending them training to a reputed training Institute for undertaking
training on RTI and Governance. Unless their capacity-building is ensured, they
cannot pass proper order.
E. It has been alleged that the Commission disposed of the SA and
Complaint cases just passing speaking
order directing the PIO for supply of information without fixing any deadline
and not imposing penalty on erring PIO. The Commission is very hurry to close /
dispose of the cases, hardly giving any attention whether information was supplied or not.
Ultimately the Appellant/ Complainants are not getting information even after
disposal of the cases. The Office of the Commission does not bother about compliance
report whether compliance Report was submitted by the Public Authority or not.
Even complaint cases filed about non-compliance of the order of the Commission
is kept pending for unknown period. If this practice continues, it will be
disaster for all stake-holders. The PIOs will not care to supply information.
The Public Authorities will continue to ignore order of the Commission. The
Citizens will be harassed and frustrated and the office of the Commission will
be redundant by the time. The dream of transparency
through RTI Act by visionary law-makers will be shattered. This practice needs
to be stopped.
F. Many participants
demanded that the Commission should send their decisions in Odia language as
they could not understand English-written order. This is the legitimate
demand of the appellant or complainants. The Commission should accept it and
send their decision in Odia language at par with Odia Asmita.
G. The cases which have been
disposed of by the Information Commission without ensuring supply of
information should be challenged before High Court, Orissa by the aggrieved
appellants.
Report prepared by Pradip
Pradhan as per decision of the Public Hearing
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener, Odisha
Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
M-9937843482
Date- 1.9.25
No comments:
Post a Comment