Functioning of Orissa Information Commission- An Evaluation
Introduction
The RTI Act, enacted on 15th June 2005, has completed more than four years of its birth, while Orissa Information Commission that started functioning on 20th Nov. 2005 has also completed more than four years of its functioning in the state. The Commission started functioning from 20th November’05 with appointment of Mr. D.N. Padhi and Prof. Radhamohan as State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner respectively in the state. In the meantime, Prof. Radhamohan on being retired has been replaced by Mr. Jagadananda as State Information Commissioner who has also completed more than one and half year in his service.
As per the Act, the mandate of the commission is to act as a watchdog over all the concerned public authorities within its jurisdiction for ensuring proper implementation of the Act. To be more precise, the first and foremost job of the Commission is to adjudicate the complaints and appeals for penalizing the guilty PIOs and compensating an aggrieved citizen who might have suffered any loss or detriment owing to omissions or commissions of a public authority [Sections 18, 19 and 20]; and (2) preparing draft annual report on the state of RTI at national level or in a State, as the case may be, for presentation in the concerned legislature by the appropriate Government [Section 25]. Thus, apart from other basic qualities such as a thorough understanding of the critical nuances of the RTI law, a passion for delivering justice to the aggrieved citizens and courage to stand up against the authorities howsoever powerful, one barely minimum skill required of the Commissioners to write the decisions on complaints and appeals and to draft the annual reports in a concise and correct language devoid of any grammatical and syntactic errors.
Besides the Commission being a public authority itself within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act is duty bound to receive application and provide information to citizens under section 6 and 7 of the Act and make proactive disclosure of the information on 17 categories as listed out under Section 4(1b) and enable the citizens to inspect and access them.
Four years of functioning of Orissa Information Commission needs to evaluated from the citizens’ perspective. Some of the critical issues relating to their functioning is as follows.
1. Anti-BPL Mindset of the Commission
Section 7(5) of RTI Act says x x x x x xx x x x x x provided that the fees prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government. It means the BPL people are exempted from paying any kind of fees for information. It is needless to mention here that there is no explicit provision in Orissa RTI Rules 2005, mandating collection of cost of information from BPL families.
But It is matter of regret that the office of Orissa Information Commission not only collects from the BPL people fees for information but also orders them to deposit fess for information while hearing and adjudicating the cases. While addressing public meetings the Commissioners give their opinion of fees to be collected from BPL people. For example, On 23.3.09 and 25.3.09, Mr. Kunja Bihari Patra, a BPL person of Nayagarh district, Orissa submitted two RTI Applications to the Public Information Officer, office of Orissa Information Commission seeking some information about its functioning. In his replies dated 21.4.09 (letter no. 4260/OIC) and (letter no. 4265/OIC) the PIO of the Commission asked Mr.Patra to deposit Rs.78/- and Rs. 48/- respectively towards cost of information. Being astonished by this letter, Mr. Patra filed a complaint case against arbitrary decision of PIO of the Commission before Chief Information Commissioner under Section 18 of RTI Act with a prayer for getting the requested information free of cost and severe penalty against PIO under Section 20 of RTI Act.
in 2006, on hearing the case of Mr. Rabindra Nath Das, a BPL Applicant from Mayurbhanj district (case Nos- 11 and 12 of 2006), both the Commissioners (Mr. D. N. Padhi and Prof. Radhamohan) had in their decision ordered the collection of fees towards cost of information saying that it was the only valid course as per the law. Then the activists had demanded before the Commissioners to show the exact section of the RTI Act or even Orissa RTI Rules, which guided their contention to collect fees from BPL families. Till today the Commissioners have not responded it.
It is simply amazing that the Commissioners don’t care to read the very circular dated 27.2.2008 containing inter alia guidelines on this matter issued by the national level nodal agency for RTI Act (Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances, GOI), which was circulated to all the Chief Secretaries and Information Commissions in the States including Orissa among others. To read the circular please visit http://persmin.gov.in/ WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/RTI/1_69_2007_IR(Eng).pdf 
About the jurisdiction of its applicability, a footnote to the said circular says, “The guidelines contained in the Annexure apply mutates mutandis to the State Public Information Officers (SPIOs). The State Governments may like to issue similar guidelines for the SPIOs.” On the issue of fees applicable to BPL families, the Paragraph-18 of the said Guidelines notes, “If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee”.
Accordingly, the Central Government and the rest of States in India in their day-to-day business do abide by the principle of complete exemption of fees for BPL persons. However, Orissa and only Orissa is the exception where we find the State Information Commission, as if actuated by an elitist hatred against the poor, keeps on emphasizing the collection of cost of information from BPL families.
2. Silent Burial of Section -4, sole of RTI Act by the Commission
Section 4 of RTI Act is termed as soul of the Act. As per the Act, each public authority is required to make suo moto disclosure of information relating to 17 subjects in their own office within 120 days of implementation of the Act i.e., 12th October ‘2005. Citizens have right to inspect these documents and take copy of it either with payment of printing cost or free of cost without submitting RTI Application under section 6 of RTI Act. In case of failure of any public authority to comply this provision, a citizen has right to make complaints under section 18 of the Act and the Information Commission is duty-bound to initiate legal proceedings as per the provision of the Act. Orissa RTI(Amendment) Rules,2006 {Rule-2(2)} has made a provision the Public Authorities to maintain a Register to record the details of visitors coming to the office for inspection of the information proactively disclosed under Section 4(1b) of RTI Act.
Exercising their rights, many citizens and activists have made visits to the office of Public Authorities to get the information proactively disclosed under section 4 of the RTI Act They have made visits to many offices starting from office of Election Commission to the office of Governor to the Secretariat. Finding no information and not being allowed to inspect the documents under section 4 of the Act, they have lodged the complaint to Orissa Information Commission against the concerned public authorities seeking justice. But It is tragedy that though hundreds of complaint cases have been filed in the office of the commission for failure of the public authorities to comply section 4 of the Act since last four years, Orissa Information Commission has not heard a single complaint case in the state on the ground that it does not come within their jurisdiction. The Commission has simply put in dustbin. For example, a team of volunteers of Deogarh Pressure Group, Deogarh district had visited the offices of Block, Tahasil and Kendu Leaf Range Office , Pallahara on 7.2.2006 to get information proactively disclosed under section 4 of the Act. Finding no information, they lodged complaints to the Commission. On 20.6.2006, without hearing the case, the Commission unilaterally rejected the case stating the ground that the complaint relating to violation of section 4 of the Act does not come within the purview of section 18 of the Act. This matter can be only monitored by the administrative wing of Information Commission under section 25(5) of RTI Act. Publicly, Orissa Information Commission is seen giving statement in seminars and workshops that “it is not mandatory on the part of public authority to comply it. They may do or may not do. Penalty can not be imposed on them on violation of section 4 of RTI Act. Commission can not hear the case”.
Because of the inaction, negligence and callous attitude of Orissa Information Commission, section 4 of the Act is still non-starter in Orissa. Inefficiency and anti-RTI mindset of Orissa Information Commission has resulted in silent burial of section-4 in Orissa. The result is the people are getting harassed a lot to get the ordinary information through RTI Application and thousands of the complaints cases are seen pending in the office of the commission for years together.
But these section-4 related complaint cases are being heard by other State Commissioners and Central Information Commissioners in the country. For, example, Central Information Commission hearing a complaint case ( complaint case No CIC/SG/C/2009/001566 dated 24.11.09- attached herewith) filed by Mr. Rajeev Lala against the Principal, Sri Aurobindo College, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi has imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- on Dr. Hari Om, Principal of the college for his failure to comply section 4 of RTI Act. Besides that CIC has directed to the Principal to comply section-4 of the Act by 31st December, 2009. Prior to it, Information Commissioner and Vice-chancellor of Delhi University, in a seminar on RTI in DU on 7.6.09 had urged all PIOs and Principals of the colleges to comply the section 4 of the Act by 15th Octob’2009. The Central Information Commission has also made several reminders to all the colleges to proactively disclose 17 subjects of information under section 4 (1b) of the Act. This step has been taken by none but firebrand Civil Society member-turned- Central Information Commissioner Mr. Sailesh Gandhi.
3. Awareness campaign by Commission - devoid of jurisdiction
As per section 26 of RTI Act, the appropriate Government is required to carry out an integrated package of measures like organizing awareness programme, training for PIOs, publishing booklets etc. for ensuring proper implementation of the Act at every level targeting especially the disadvantaged communities, who need extensive support to avail the benefits of the Act. The Act prescribes a clear-cut division of functions between different statutory actors like appropriate Govt, Competent authority, Information Commission described in various sections of the Act. Unless an illiterate in the very literary sense of the term, one cant miss the boundaries of territories, each assigned separately to every such actor. Broadly speaking, the scheme of RTI Act assigns the executive functions to the Government while judicial functions to the Commission. Any act of intrusion by one into the others territory is therefore sure to invite disaster to the very vitals of the Act in the land of its implementation. But, as ill luck would have it, that is what has been happening to Orissa since the very birth of Orissa Information Commission. The State Commission has not only usurped the territory and along with it the budgets due of the State Government, but also, as a legitimate consequence of its illegitimate act, lost track of the very functions assigned to it under the Act.
To begin with, for instance, the Section 26 (1) enjoins upon the State Government, mind you, not the Commission, to adopt a host of measures for awareness of the public and training and orientation of public authorities and PIOs on provisions of RTI Act. Four years on, there is however not a single measure that has been taken by the State Government on this count. Instead whatever measures the Commission boasts of having taken on this front is, as we shall see a little later, not only too ill conceived, but also at the expense of its statutory function i.e. to adjudicate the complaints and appeals. Next, the Section 26(2) of the Act enjoins upon the State Government, mind you, not the Commission, to publish a guide book in regional language to help a person who wishes to exercise any right specified in this Act. Fours years on, there is however not a single such publication made by the State Government. Instead, the so-called Oriya publication Some tips on RTI Act-2005 brought out by the Commission is not only flawed in so many respects, but also conspicuously deficient in furnishing such an elementary tip as to what fees a BPL person has to pay towards the cost of information. Then, the Section 26(3) enjoins upon the State Government to regularly disseminate updated information on such matters as postal and email address of PIOs, manner and form in which request for information is to be placed before PIOs, assistance to be availed from PIOs and Information Commissions, types of remedies available to a citizen vis--vis failure and violation by a public authority, suo motu disclosures under Section 4, and fees to be paid against different items etc. However, fours years on, not a single publication covering the above matters has been out by the State Government. Instead, what the abovementioned publication of the Commission on RTI tips has done is to present a highly truncated, skewed and jaundiced version of the RTI Act in line with the congenitally flawed Orissa RTI Rules 2005 imposed by the State Government ultra vires the parent Act. Since the said booklet mentions the mandatory use by an applicant of an 11-column Form-A along with the attachment of voters card as proof of citizenship, many of its readers were in fact misled into believing that they were to use it in respect of any public authority, be it covered under the Central Government, any other State Government, Supreme Court, High Court, Lok Sabha or Orissa Assembly. As a matter of fact, this single Oriya booklet on RTI tips has done more disservice to the cause of RTI Act in Orissa than possibly any other factor.
With the State Government having sub-let the contract of executing the RTI Act along with the attendant budgetary provisions to the Commission, and the Commission assuming a two-in-one Avtar from the day of its birth, the inevitable happened. The Commissioners ignoring blissfully the adjudicatory functions assigned to them, exerted themselves heart and soul to emerge as another funding agency of the State- netting the pliant NGOs as grant recipients, printing posters and pamphlets, financing so-called Soochana Camps, inaugurating rallies, addressing meetings, distributing prizes and what not. The net result of all this is a bitter truth difficult to digest on any bodys part- Orissa Commission, though most expensive among all State Commissions in so far as its annual budget is concerned, is by far the lowest performing one in respect of its primary, statutory function i.e. adjudication of complaints and appeals lodged by the aggrieved citizens.
And in respect of the other statutory function i.e. preparation of annual reports on the state of RTI in the State, the performance of Orissa Commission is equally dismal. The Section 25(3) succinctly lists out the items to be covered in every Annual Report, such as number of requests for information made to each public authority, number of denials and grounds thereof, number of appeals made to the Commission and outcome thereof, particulars of disciplinary action taken against the defaulter officers, amount of charges collected by each public authority, exemplary efforts by public authorities to administer the Act, and recommendation for reform of the public authorities for better operationalisation of the Act. However, on perusal of the 3 Annual Reports for the period 2005-08, one would certainly feel dismayed to find that the said Reports have skipped the very items, which are statutory in nature and instead freaked out on matters which are outside their purview. For instance, none of the Annual Reports mentions anything about Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 or Orissa High Court RTI Rules 2005, or about what the competent authorities like Speaker and Governor did in respect their obligation for notifying separate Rules under the Act. Nor did the said Reports give any idea about the District-wise number of requests for information and denials if any, for instance, at the level of an important public authority like the District Collectorate. Though it is widely known and admitted too by the Commission in course their decisions that the public authorities and PIOs across the State are loath to implement the RTI Act, the Reports however keep absolutely mum about any disciplinary action (distinguished from fine) taken against anybody under the Act. Moreover, as irony would have it, the said Annual Reports do flash glaring misinformation at various places, an outrageous malpractice punishable under the Act. For instance, one such Report wrongly says that Orissa enacted a Right to Information Act in 2002. The Reports, each interspersed with big, big dazzling photographs exhibiting the Commissioners with eye-catching prominence, dish out a series of blatant myths, obviously in a brazen bid to please the innocent readers. A conspicuous instance of such myths is the claim made by the Annual Report 2006-07, wherein it is stated that 61,000 persons visited the Soochana Shibirs organized by the Commission and 38,800 poor from among them filed RTI applications on nagging issues confronting their day-to-day life. In absence of any disaggregated district-wise data to corroborate such gigantic totals, how can we take for granted their veracity? Thus the Annual Reports of Orissa Information Commission are but well-designed exercises in evasion, misinformation and hyperboles, least expected under Section-26 of RTI Act.
As for the moot question why Orissa Commissions rate of case disposal is the lowest in the country despite the richest budget to its credit, and why are its Annual Reports by far off the standards set by the Act, the answer is plain and simple. The Commissioners instead of minding their own business have usurped the business of the Government regardless of any statutory sanction, perhaps tantalized by a lure for all the charm and charisma, glare and glitter that the latter carried along. However, now is the time out for the Commission to play the alter ego of the Government. So we say, they ought to and must report back to their business proper.
4. Sub-standard & flawed decisions by the Orissa Info Commission
As per the Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of RTI Act, the Commissioners at Central or State level shall be recruited from among “the persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.” As for the basic statutory powers-cum-functions of a Commission, these are two, namely, (1) adjudicating the complaints and appeals for penalizing the guilty PIOs and compensating an aggrieved citizen who might have suffered any loss or detriment owing to omissions or commissions of a public authority [Sections 18, 19 and 20]; and (2) preparing draft annual report on the state of RTI at national level or in a State, as the case may be, for presentation in the concerned legislature by the appropriate Government [Section 20]. Thus, apart from other basic qualities such as a thorough understanding of the critical nuances of the RTI law, a passion for delivering justice to the aggrieved citizens and courage to stand up against the authorities howsoever powerful, one barely minimum skill required of the Commissioners to write the decisions on complaints and appeals and to draft the annual reports in a concise and correct language devoid of any grammatical and syntactic errors.
But it is painful to say that the decisions and reports authored by the Orissa Information Commissioners not only abound in unconscionable errors of judgment, but also are replete with silly grammatical errors, not at all expected of ‘eminent’ Commissioners. With faulty use of words and misconstruction of sentences, the writing itself, be that a decision or a report, coming as it does from a quasi-judicial authority like the Information Commission, becomes a source of unwarranted confusion and ambiguity to the concerned parties and, nay, that of ridicule before an intelligent readership. It is more so, when, for instance, a decision signed by the Commissioners but filled with avoidable silly omissions and commissions is put on the website for display before a global public. While reserving a discussion on the quality of the Commission’s annual reports to a future date, what are submitted below are a few samples, four only, from out of numerous erroneously drafted decisions signed singly or jointly by the Information Commissioners of Orissa over the years.
A. Faulty & erratic language- Not only the Orissa Commission’s rate of disposal poorest in the country, but quite a bunch of its decisions are simply unreadable due to faulty & erratic English. For instance-
1) CC No.439/2008 decided by SIC Jagdanand on 17.3.2009
“The State Commission is of the opinion that the information post led by the PIO has to considered as an important public interface point and should not be the made void at any point of time.”
2) CC No.991/2007 decided by SIC Jagadanand on 20.3.2009 in Circuit Hearing, Sambalpur
This Case is being heard on two different occasion on 26.8.08 and 19.11.08….. The Complainant today confirmed that he has received all the information from the PIO which he could belatedly received only after intervention of the State Commission. .. … As both the cases are self-same. The case is covered with the case no-990/2007.
3) SA No.129/2007 by SIC (Prof.Radhamohan) on 4.1.2008
“2. Form A application dated 19.09.06 was received by the Public Authority on 26.09.06 and placed before the PIO on 13.10.06. This indicates that the administrative process is not RTI Act complaint. ………
“5. Since the first intimation was received by the Appellant within stipulated period of 30 days and also received complete information in the meanwhile there is no other point to pursue.”
4) SA Appeal No.7/2006 decided on 30 May 2006 by Chief SIC D.N.Padhi & SIC Prof. Radhamohan
“The Respondent further submitted that supply of the information sought for will be hit by the provisions of Sec (h) of the Act.” (Is there a provision called Section (h) of the Act?)
-Legally flawed decisions-
a) In most cases, no penalty against PIOs even if proved guilty (For instances Vide Study Findings on Standard & Quality of Decisions of OSIC- A Report by Right to Food Campaign, Orissa 2008, and Ch-8 of RTI Act 2005 in Orissa, A Report 2008 by PRIA New Delhi);
b) In cases where the penalty has been imposed, most of the penalized officers were the lowest rung officials at GP and RI level etc. Not a single OAS/IAS Officer holding the post of PIO has been penalized;
a) Except in a few cases, failure to compensate the aggrieved complainants and appellants who might have suffered loss or detriment;
b) Omitting the names of PIOs/Appellate Officers from some decisions apparently to shield them (For instances Vide the above publications);
c) Refusal to entertain the complaints against the failure of public authorities to make suo motu disclosures under Sec 4 (CC Nos 3,4 &5 of 2006);
d) In place of ‘first come, first serve principle’, arbitrary ‘pick and choose’ method for quick hearing and disposal of the complaints and appeals by the favoured persons in the name of ‘priority to public interest cases’;
e) Arbitrariness in registering and acknowledging the complaints and appeals
f) Excessive delay in holding the first hearing, next hearings and final disposal of cases (For a discussion Vide the above publications).;
g) Failure to describe the facts of the case in a decision, leading to confusion among the readers of the decisions (For instances Vide the above publications);
h) Arbitrary and faulty interpretation of Act & Rules to collect fees towards cost of information from BPL families (CC Nos. 11 & 22 of 2006);
i) Arbitrary and faulty interpretation of Sec-7(1) Act and assert that mere response by the PIO (no matter information supplied or not) within 30 days of the receipt of application is enough to exonerate him from penalty. (For instances Vide the above publications).
6. OSIC’ Annual Reports: Bluff and Buffoonery all the way-
- Hollow Reports: In an apparent compliance to Section 25 of the Act, the Commission has displayed separate Annual Reports for 3 years (from 2005-06 through 07-08). But these Reports lack the very information, which Section 25(3) has made obligatory, such as-
- Number of applications submitted to each public authority in a State;
- Number of rejections and reasons thereof;
- Cases of disciplinary proceedings made against errant officials;
- Amount of money collected by each public authority in the State;
- Initiatives taken by public authorities to enforce the Act;
- Administrative Reforms made by public authorities for better implementation of the Act.
- No mention about Orissa RTI (Amend) Rules, 06 or Competent Authorities
- None of the annual reports makes any reference to Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006, a landmark subordinate legislation passed by Orissa Legislative Assembly. Why? Perhaps, it is due to Commission’s ingrained aversion against Section 4 of the Act, which is emphasized by the said Rules. Moreover, the Amendment Rules provided for an amended Form-A that contained a column on transaction through email. But the Commission itself even now recommends the use of the outdated application form on its website.
- None of the Annual Reports informs anything about the implementation of RTI Act by such competent authorities in the State as Speaker OLA, Chief Justice Orissa High Court and Governor Orissa.
-Misinformation-
A classic case of spreading misinformation by the Commission is on Page-13 of the Annual Report 2006-07, where it is mentioned inter alia Orissa passed an RTI Act in 2002.
-White lies-
At page 16 of Annual Report for 2006-07 it is mentioned inter alia, “About 61 thousand people visited the “Soochana Shibirs” held all over the State and 38800 R.T.I. applications were filed during the period mainly on the issues like allotment of houses under Indira Awas Yojana, B.P.L. Card issue, Land matters, Public Distribution System etc.” But when asked to furnish under an RTI Application, district wise break-up of 61,000 visitors and 38,800 RTI applications, the office of the Commission simply refused to part with the information.
-Dubious monetary transactions
In the Annual Report 2006-07, we find, out of a total of Rs. 20,137,000/- (RE) sanctioned to the Commission, only the entry ‘lump sum’ accounted for Rs.6,000,000/- (60 lakh). Again, in the Annual Report for 2007-08, out of a total of Rs.2,69,15,000/- (RE), as much as Rs.10,000,000/- (1 crore) is just earmarked as ‘lump sum’ money. Only God knows, what does this ‘lump sum’ mean and to whose pocket or pockets it has traveled? Only a high-level enquiry by a Supreme Court Judge, to be commissioned by Governor Orissa under Section 17 of RTI Act may bring this shady entry into true light.
7. Orissa Info Commission, costliest but dullest in the country
Ironically, in the country’s poorest State Orissa, Information Commission is the richest amongst all State Commissions. For instance, in 2007-08 State Commissions of Gujurat and Rajasthan could manage with only Rs.40 lakh and Rs.35 lakh respectively, while Orissa Commission squandered away a whopping Rs.2 crore 70 lakh, nearly 7 times that of Gujurat and 8 times that of Rajasthan. Assam, which has 2 Commissioners like Orissa, spent only about 46.5 lakh, which is about one sixth of Orissa Commission’s expenditure. Even Karnataka, which has 3 Commissioners, spent only Rs.96 lakh, which is about two and half fraction of Orissa Commission’s annual expenditure. Then Madhya Pradesh, which has 4 Commissioners spent only Rs.97 lakh in the same year. Even Punjab, which employs as many as 9 Commissioners, spent only Rs. 1 crore 10 lakh, which is Rs.1 crore 60 lakh less than the amount consumed by Orissa Commission.
Though most expensive of all, Orissa Commission’s performance in terms of its basic statutory function i.e. disposal of complaints and appeals is by far the poorest. For instance, one-member Commissions of Gujurat and Rajasthan disposed of 198 and 152 cases respectively in March 2008, while two-member Commission of Orissa disposed of a total of only 36 cases (11 appeals + 25 complaints) in the same month. It means, the efficiency of Gujurat and Rajsthan Commissions is about 5.5 times and 4 times that of Orissa Commission. On a further analysis, we find, in terms of individual capacity, one Gujurat Commissioner is equivalent to 11 nos. of Orissa Commissioners, and one Rajasthan Commissioner is equivalent to 9 nos. of Orissa Commissioners.
Compared to the capacity level of Central Information Commissioners, Orissa Commissioners would show up as a molehill before a mountain. For instance, in Dec. 2008 two-member Orissa Commission disposed of only a total of 48 cases (40 complaints+ 8 second appeals), which means that a single Commissioner could dispose of 24 cases per month, or roughly one case per day. But in the same month, one Central Commissioner Mr.Shailesh Gandhi disposed of 450 cases, or roughly 19 cases a day. In other words, one Shailesh Gandhi equals 19 nos. of DN Padhis or 19 nos. of Jagadanands. Though the fact remains, as per law, Mr.Gandhi is entitled to more or less same salary as that of an Orissa Commissioner (i.e. Mr.D.N.Padhi’s Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand, and Mr.Jagadanand’s Rs.1 lakh 13 thousand and 60 per month).
Another paradox, Orissa Commission though poorest in performance, has the largest and most expensive bureaucratic machinery at its command. It has 35 nos. of personnel including 2 Commissioners (i.e. 1 Secy, 1 Registrar, 2 Law Officers, 1 Legal Facilitator, 1 Court Master, 1 Scrutinizer-cum-Shirastadar, 4 Personal Assistants, 3 Private Secys, 6 Data Processing Assistants, 1 Section Officer, 3 Asst. Section Officers, 6 Peons, 2 Drivers and 1 Sweeper-cum-Night watchman). Whereas the single member Rajasthan Commission, four times more efficient than Orissa Commission, manages with only 14 staff (1 Secy, 1 Registrar, 1 Administrative Officer, 3 Personal Assistants, 1 Reader, 1 Scribe, 2 Computer Operators, 2 Class-IV and 2 Security Guards). And the single member Gujurat Commission, which is 5.5 times more efficient than its Orissa counterpart manages with only 7 nos. of personnel. It is more intriguing to learn that Central Commission with 8 Commissioners, looking after 28 States & 6 UTs manages with 29 nos. of personnel, which is much less than that of Orissa.
Thus, there is no tangible link between the number of Commissioners, staff strength or annual budget of a Commission with that of its performance. Having the largest staff and highest expenditure Orissa Commission has proved the dullest in performance, while with low budget and less manpower, State Commissions of Gujurat and Rajasthan have performed much better. Even the Central Commission runs its mega show with a slenderer manpower that that of Orissa Commission.
What is wanted in respect of Orissa Commission is optimum output by each Commissioner in terms of case disposal along with a drastic cut in its extravagant budget and superfluous manpower, keeping in view the fact that Orissa is the poorest State.
8. Orissa Info Commissioner in the company of private companies
The news item ‘Tata Steel teams up with Orissa Information Commission on RTI awareness’ that appeared in ‘The Economic Times’ dated 4.10.09 has already been critically responded to by quite some friends, who basically questioned the ethicality of Mr.Jagadanand’s ‘teaming up’ with a corporate giant, which has a dubious record of pushing forward its pet projects through the behind-the-scene deals in league with a nexus of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, that led each time to blood spills of?? common people, be it at Singur in WB, or at Chilika, Gopalpur and Kalinganagar in Orissa.
But a couple of questions more fundamental than the one just mentioned need to be raised concerning the open association and identification of Mr.Jagadanand in the capacity of Orissa Information Commissioner with Tata Steel, which is but a ‘private body’ (Section 2-f) or a ‘Non-Government Organisation’ (Section 2-h-d-ii) as per the lexicon of RTI Act 2005. As is well known, such corporate bodies are well within the ambit of RTI Act owing to their enjoyment of a ‘substantial’ ‘indirect funding’ (for instance, provision of cheap Government land) by the State. In all likelihood, any day such a Company may perforce have to appear before the Commission as a respondent (opposite party) vis-a-vis the complaint or appeal lodged by a common citizen denied of access to the Company’s information under RTI Act. And as the law expects, the Commission has to adjudicate the said case in a non-partisan and impartial manner and pronounce its decision accordingly. And mind it, the RTI law unlike other mainstream laws, presumes the innocence of the citizen seeking information and liability of the public authority denying information, and that is why it puts the ‘onus to prove’ (Section 19-5) or ‘burden of proving’ (Section 20-1) on the PIO of the concerned public authority. Not only that. As both Central and State Rules on appeal proceedings stipulate, the complainant or appellant may pretty well decide to abstain from the proceedings of a case being taken up before the Commission, and in that eventuality, the latter is expected to fight for his case in absentia against the respondent public authority and punish the said authority as and when it deserves so.?
Thus in the eyes of RTI Act, the Tata Steel or for that matter any major corporate entity is a public authority and therefore a potential culprit like any governmental entity, which has one day or the other to comply with the ‘burden of proof’ before the Commission in regard to alleged denial of information to the complainant citizen. Thus, so far the RTI Act goes, the ideal relation between the Commission and a Public Authority (be it a GO or an NGO) is the same as the one between a judge and a potential criminal. It goes without saying, if the judge be found to be in the close company of a criminal, the people start losing confidence in the judge, and never dare to approach his court even when severe cruelty is inflicted on them by the said criminal in broad daylight. Therefore Mr.Jagadanand in the capacity of Orissa Information Commissioner, before consenting to join in the public event organised by Tata Steel and pouring words of appreciation in favour of the Company should have reckoned with the quasi-judicial position, similar to that of a judge in the mainstream judiciary, which he holds and for which he is sumptuously paid.
The next fundamental question that needs to be raised is, whether Mr.Jagadanand as the State Information Commissioner is legally competent to ‘launch’ and ‘laud’ the RTI Awareness Campaign of the Tata Steel, or for that matter any private body? As a matter of fact, the RTI Act has clearly laid down a division of functions between the Government and Commission as to who shall do what. All the activities that relate to awareness, training, publication of Rules and guidelines and monitoring etc. shall be performed by the appropriate Government (Section 26), while two major functions, namely disposal of complaints/appeals (Sections 18-20) and drafting of Annual Reports (Section 25) shall be performed by the Commission. And mind you, the domains of Government and Commission are strictly exclusive of each other i.e. the Government can’t encroach on the quasi-judicial territory of the Commission just as the Commission can’t and shouldn’t meddle into awareness related activities of the Government. To make things more explicit by way of an analogy, the RTI Act has entrusted the Government with all sorts of out-door activities and the Commission with indoor activities. And such a division of labour seems to be well-intentioned one too. Otherwise, if the Commissioners go out to launch and address this or that campaign of private bodies leaving their prime job of adjudication and preparation of annual reports, for which they are paid, will not the public interest suffer? Moreover, if the Commissioners usurp the business of awareness campaign, what shall the Government or its nodal agency I&PR Dept do? Will they not sit idle with folded hands? In the instant case, it won’t have created any ripple, if the Minister I&PR himself or for that matter any top official of the State would have launched and lauded the RTI Awareness Campaign of Tata Steel.
It is worthwhile to recollect that precisely for the reason of Orissa Information Commission grabbing to itself all the functions the State Government ought to perform, the Commission is not only a visible defaulter in respect of its obligatory, adjudicatory functions (for instance, lingering and delayed hearings, poor outturn, flawed decisions, silly errors of grammar and arithmetic), but also a grand fiasco in respect of its so-called awareness initiatives (for instance, erratic translation of RTI Act, faulty FAQs and grossly misinformed Annual Reports). And mind you, the Annual Report on RTI in Orissa to be drafted by the Commission for 2008-09 is already long overdue. Shouldn’t Mr.Jagadanand the Commissioner along with the elder Commissioner Mr.D.N.Padhi exert themselves to ensure its release at the earliest instead of frittering away their highly precious time and energy after this or that Company, which is again not their concern at all.
To sum up-
- Mr.Jagadanand Orissa Information Commissioner by his act of ‘launching’ and ‘lauding’ the so-called RTI Awareness Campaign of Tata Steel and Mr.D.N.Padhi Chief Orissa Information Commissioner by his act of allowing him to do so have despoiled the august office of the Commission of its sanctity and legitimacy in the eyes of all and should therefore come forth with an immediate apology before the public along with a solemn undertaking that they won’t repeat such a legally indefensible act ever in future; and
- In keeping with the demarcation of functions between the Government and Commission as laid down in RTI Act, the Commission should immediately keep its hands off from the awareness activities of any sort, the legitimate domain of the Government, and instead devote itself exclusively to its own domain i.e. disposal of complaints/appeals and drafting of annual reports.?
9. Orissa Information Commission: Stop playing havoc to RTI Act & Oriya language
Orissa Information Commission has published a bilingual compilation of RTI Act 2005 in both Oriya and English spaced in a total of 81 pages. As evident from the note given at the end of the book, a total of its 90,000 copies were printed as on 28.2.2007. Thus, for about two and half years now the book has been in great circulation throughout Orissa. Many organizations and activists have used it in some of the training sessions on RTI Act.
While going through the Commissions so-called authoritative version of the said translation during the training sessions, it was wonder-struck and couldn’t but yell, What a none-sense. In fact, a whole treatise can be produced on the numerous fatal flaws that stalk the pages of the Commissions Oriya publication.
For Example-1: Please go to lines 2 &3 under Section-18(1-a) on page-27 of the Oriya booklet. In the very place, where the ex-pressions Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer should have been there, you would find Oriya equivalents of Central Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner. As a result of such erratic translation, a reader would be misled to believe as if the Central or State Information Commissioner is duty bound to receive an application for information from an applicant directly, failing which an applicant is entitled to lodge a Complaint directly before the Commission under Section 18.
Example-2: Please go to Section 18(2) on the next Page i.e. 28. In the very place, where such ex-pressions as Central Information Commission or State Information Commission should have been there, you would find Oriya equivalents of Central Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner. Needless to say, in legal parlance there is a hell and heaven gap between these two sets of ex-pressions. An honest reader would be misled to believe, as if the Central or State Information Commissioner is the sole authority to decide if there existed a ground for enquiry into a matter or not, and in the reverse, as if the Chief Commissioner or Commission itself didnt matter at all.
Now it is upto Orissa Information Commission and RTI loving Oriya citizenry at large to quickly but carefully scan the pages of the so-called authoritative Oriya translation of RTI Act to discover for themselves if there be further errors of the above or other types in the rest of the book.
A pertinent question may arise here, whether the State Commission was apprised on the gross errors of the above kind affecting its Oriya translation of RTI Act? The answer is an emphatic Yes. In a bilingual booklet published as early as 1st January 2007 by Right to Food Campaign, Orissa under the title, Operationalisation of RTI Act 2005 & Role of State Information Commission in Orissa- Status & Review we had reproduced verbatim the so-called authoritative Oriya translation after downloading it from Commissions website, just to point out token instances of the erratic Oriya rendering. For instance, we had shown on page 13 of our booklet, how at 3 places in Section-17 alone, the word Governor has been wrongly replaced by the word President and how there occurred two different errors in Section-18(1). On publication of out booklet, what the Commission did in turn was to correct 4 out of 5 such errors, leaving one error in tact and bothering least about the possibility of other errors occurring in the remaining text. Strange but true, though aware about the possibility of some un-addressed and potential errors in the Oriya translation, the Commission went for printing of 90,000 copies in July 2007 at a huge cost to the public exchequer.
Whatever might be the reason for Commissions decision to publish a defective Oriya translation of RTI Act 2005, it has already wrought great damage not only to the cause of RTI Act but also to Oriya language itself. It seems the persons including the Commissioners themselves who might have vetted the decision to go for printing of the said translation into 90 thousand copies at one go, were little concerned with the negative fall-out it would possibly generate on fronts of both RTI Act and Oriya language.
Be that as it may, as for now, the Commission should instantly stop further circulation of its defective translation of RTI Act, issue a public apology in mass media and on its website for having circulated such a defective translation, and widely publicise a list of errata of the said publication for the public knowledge. Moreover, the Governor Orissa who is as such the ultimate disciplinary authority over the Information Commissioners, should constitute an enquiry under Section 17 of the Act by a Supreme Court judge so as to trace out the persons responsible for such a messy treatment meted out to both RTI Act and Oriya language, take drastic action against them and recover due compensation from them against the huge loss already done to the public exchequer by their fancies and follies.
Above all, the Commission, whose basic two-fold mandate is to adjudicate the cases and draft the annual reports on the state of RTI, should keep its hands off the financial and administrative business of publication, be it of a book, FAQ, poster or any campaign material and leave them lock, stock and barrel to the State Government, whose legitimate domain it is as clearly spelled out in Section 26 of RTI Act.
10. Double standards of Orissa Information Commission in respect of property disclosure
There was a news in Oriya newspapers like DHARITRI, PRAGATIVADI and KHABARA reporting that on hearing a complaint case filed by Mr. Biswapriya Kanungo, Orissa Chief Information Commissioner directed the Govt. of Orissa to disclose property list of IAS and OAS officers in public domain and provide information concerning the same to the applicant citizens. This news was circulated to all the media through press release issued from I and PR Dept. Apparently this is a good decision taken by Orissa Information Commission, but there is more to it than meets the eye.
On the other hand, . On 31.8.09, Mr. Pradip Pradhan, RTI Applicant had applied to the Public Information Officers in the offices of both Orissa Information Commission and Information and Public Relations Department, Orissa seeking information about the property list of State Chief Information Commissioner ( Mr. D.N. Padhi), State Information Commissioner (Mr. Jagadananda Mohanty) and former State Information Commissioner (Prof. Radhamohan) which they might have submitted to Govt in compliance of their respective Service Rules. As is well known, the status of Mr. D.N. Padhi is equivalent in rank to that of Election Commissioner of India and that of Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty to that of Chief Secretary of State. It is further well known that as per both All India and State Service Rules, the concerned Officers are required to submit the property list to the Govt. under whom they are presently posted.
Strangely enough, the PIO, Dept. of I and PR rejected his RTI Application without any rhyme or reason. Then he made the 1st Appeal before the Appellate Authority, Dept. of I and PR, who on hearing his appeal petition directed the PIO to forward the application to the PIO, Office of Orissa Information Commission under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act for providing me the required information.
But then the PIO, office of OIC, supplied him incomplete information. As is well known, as per the Service Rules the property list means both movable assets (Bank Balance, LIC, Insurance and jewelery etc.) and immovable assets ( land, building etc. ). But the PIO simply supplied him list of immovable assets of the Commissioners.
On receiving incomplete information, he made 1st appeal to the 1st Appellate Officer of the Commission with request to supply complete information. On 27.11.09, the 1st Appellate Officer heard the case. During the hearing, the PIO explained that he could not supply the complete information as the information on movable assets has not been submitted by any Commissioner. He further observed that State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner have supplied only the information relating to immovable assets, and that too in a prescribed proforma. The 1st Appellate Authority dismissed case pronouncing that the PIO has provided the information as available with him from the source of both the Commissioners.
Not satisfied with the decision of the 1st Appellate Officer, Mr. Pradhan have made 2nd appeal to Orissa Information Commission on 12.1.2010, pleading for supply of complete information and take punitive action against the PIO as required under Section 20 of RTI Act. Mr. Pradhan is eagerly waiting with baited breath to know how Orissa Information Commission hears and decides the case when the Commissioners themselves have not provided the required information on their movable assets to the PIO as required under the existing Service Rules.
It is crystal clear that both the Commissioners who have not disclosed the complete information about their respective property list including movable assets to the Office of Commission have violated the Service Rules applicable to them and deserve therefore to be censured and punished by the Governor, who has sworn them into the office. Secondly, both Commissioners, who have deliberately kept their own office in dark about their ‘movable assets’ are patently guilty of ‘moral turpitude’ and therefore deserve to be dismissed by the Governor forthwith under Section 17 of RTI Act.
Moreover, is it not a conspicuous case of double standards on the part of both Information Commissioners of Orissa, who on one hand stole the show by directing the IAS and OAS officers of the State to disclose all their assets movable and immovable to the public, and on the other are scared of disclosing their movable assets to the public? It seems, they have carefully hid such information from the public view, lest the disproportionate wealth they might have amassed during different phases of their public career would be leaked out and thereby invite fresh scandals to rage against them.
It is high time that the Information Commission, be it Central or State should serve as the example before the entire gamut of public servants in respect of observance of transparency and accountability, the real mantra of Right to Information Act. And the first step towards realization of this mantra on the part of the Commissioners is to lay bare before the public whose servants they are the entire corpus of wealth they have acquired by the sweat of their brow or otherwise. But our Information Commissioners are a typical lot of double-speaks, who refrain from doing the very thing themselves which they seek to thrust on others. Here lies the corrective role not only of the Governor, whom the RTI Act has placed as disciplinary authority over the said Commissioners, but also of the citizenry at large, who are the ultimate authority over all authorities in the democratic India.
What we have done so far in context of ensuring effective functioning of Orissa Information Commission.
1. Appeal to citizens to lodge complaint before the Governor using Section 17 of RTI Act to protest against unjust acts of Orissa Information Commission
It was found that a number of complainant-citizens were not satisfied with the decisions given by Orissa Information Commission while disposing of a complaint or an appeal. In many cases, the Commission has failed not only to ensure supply of information wrongfully denied to the citizens but also to impose penalty on errant PIOs found guilty. Till today, there is not a single case where the Commission has imposed penalty on any officer belonging to OAS, IAS, IPS or IFS, though such officers were found patently guilty of violating the provisions of RTI Act. On the contrary, only small chaps- clerks, Panchayat Executive Officers, Stenos and peons- have been singled out for penalisation by the Commission. Moreover, the aggrieved citizens have been given an impression that nothing can be done against the dispensations, good or bad, right or wrong, dished out by the Commission. Such a misimpression is buttressed by a shrewd reference to a particular expression occurring in the RTI Act that the decision of the Commission is final and binding. As a consequence the citizens aggrieved by the omissions and commissions in the decisions of the Commission develop a cynical feeling that nothing can be legally done against the Commission howsoever flawed their acts and decisions might be and thus land in a state of utter hopelessness. And the price of people’s hopelessness is simply immeasurable – loss of faith in RTI Act altogether. .
But as per the Act, the Governor is empowered to take action against the Information Commissioners on several grounds including inefficiency, misbehavior or corruption. The Section 17(1) says that the Governor may get a complaint of misbehavior or incapacity received against a Commissioner enquired into by a Judge of the Supreme Court and may remove a Commissioner basing upon the report of the said Judge. Section 17(2) says that pending the results of the enquiry so ordered, the Governor may suspend a Commissioner from his post and even prohibit him from attending the office during the period of enquiry. Further the Section 17(3) gives a more direct power to Governor to remove a Commissioner from his position if the latter is adjudged an insolvent, guilty of moral turpitude, engaged in any paid employment outside the duties of his office, unfit to continue in office owing to infirmity of body or mind, found accumulating financial and other interests prejudicial to the duties of his office.
As per the information supplied by the Office of Governor in the month of Sept.’08, only 9 complaints were received against Orissa Information Commissioners untill then by the Office of Governor and the said ones were under examination.
So, it was made to all citizens who feel aggrieved by any act or decision of the Commission should, instead of being hopeless or helpless, lodge their complaint to Governor urging action against the Orissa Information Commissioners on the grounds of inefficiency, corruption, misbehavior or an immoral act.
To
The State Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa
Toshali Plaza, Satya Nagar,
Bhubaneswar
Sub- Recommendation passed in the State level Public Review on Decisions of Orissa Information Commission
Sir,
We, the activists and concerned citizens came together in a State level Public Review on “Decisions of Orissa Information Commission” held at Red Cross Bhawan on 23.2.2010, the object of which was to review the performance of the Commission and how the common people seeking justice are treated by the Commission. .The meeting was organized under the joint aegis of Right to Food Campaign, Orissa, Orissa State Vigilance Council, Cuttack and NAMASKAR Organisation, Konark.
Deliberating in the discussions, the participants presented the testimonies and shared their experience of how they were being harassed by the Commission itself and denied justice.
Some of the major issues relating to the performance and decisions of the Commission are as follows.
A. Mr. M.C. Mishra citing and describing the details of his Complaint Case No 481 of 2006, said that the Commission fixed so many dates for hearing of the cases that it became very expensive for the poor complainant-citizens to come to attend the hearings. In his case, the Commission has fixed the dates of hearing as many as 8 times before disposing the case. We know that as per the RTI Act and Orissa Appeal Procedure Rules it was not mandatory on the part of the complainant to attend the hearing. In his absence, the hearing could be held and the case disposed of by the Commission keeping the focus of the hearing on the interest of the complainant . But we find that in situations where the Complainant finds it too expensive or otherwise difficult to attend the hearing, the Commission taking advantage of the absence of the complainant, disposed of the case basing only upon the submission of the defaulting PIOs and that too without imposing any penalty against the PIO and without ordering the disclosure of complete information to the complainant. So we urge upon you that the number of hearings should be reduced to a maximum of 3 times.
B. The Commission has also failed to punish guilty PIOs in so many cases, where the latter deserved so. Letting the PIOs scotfree has emboldened them to persist in a denial mode and ill treatment towards the citizens. The role of such audacious PIOs grows more and more contrary to the letter and spirit of RTI Act. Thus they become the saboteurs of the RTI Act in their respective offices. On the other hand, the citizens who kept struggling hard and long to achieve their right to information are getting frustrated. So we request you to punish the PIOs who are proven guilty of violating the Act in each and every case.
C. It was also discussed that without providing complete information, the Commission disposed of so many cases. This is totally useless. We request you not to repeat it further. Please deal with every case so strongly and meticulously that the complainant citizen gets the complete information at the end of the day.
D. The first hearing of the cases is being held after 6 to 12 months of filling of the case in the Commission. For instance, Mr.Pradip Pradhan citing his case said that he had filed a complaint case in June 2007. Now after three years, the Commission has fixed the date for hearing on 15.3. 2010. In this case preliminary notice was issued after two and half years of its receipt by the Commission. So it was suggested that a Preliminary notice should be issued within 7 days of the filing of a complaint in the commission.
E. The decisions of the Commission are presently written in English. The illiterate and semi-literate people of Orissa are not able to go through it. The RTI Act itself has made provision of disseminating information in the local language (Section 4-4). The Commission is quite aware about it and and the mandate of the Commission is to enforce every provision of the Act in letter and spirit. The decisions of many State Commissions are written in their respective regional languages (AP, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, MP, UP, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujurat, Maharastra for example).. So we request you to ensure writing the decisions in our regional language Oriya, and the Commission may if it so desires bring out a simultaneous English version of each decision for the benefit of the non-Oriya public. We the activists will be happy to provide voluntary services to the Commission in this matter.
F. It is noticed that the copy of the decisions of the Commission is sent to the complainant or appellant after two to three months of the decision taken. This practice is very bad. A complainant may like to file a re-appeal in the Commission, which is allowable under Section 19(9) and Section 23 of the RTI Act. So it was thought appropriate to press the Commission to issue a Copy of its decision on every hearing, interim or final within 7 days of the date of hearing
to the complainant or appellant.
G. Since inception the Commission has followed an outrageously illegal practice of avoiding the Complaint cases relating to violation of the Section 4 of the Act. This practice of the Commission being ultra vires the parent Act should be stopped forthwith and hearing be made on every such Complaint.
H. The Commission ought to remember that seeking consultation and cooperation of the citizens in general and cvil society groups in particular is always welcome and beneficial in a democracy. Recognising this principle the Central Information Commission organizes national level consultation meetings from time to time to further the cause of effective implementation of RTI Act. We recommend that Orissa Information Commission should arrange periodical consultation with concerned citizens, activists and civil society groups for seeking feedback on its own performance and as well for improving the implementation of RTI Act. In the State.
We will be happy to receive your response on the above suggestions..
With regards
Venue- Bhubaneswar
Date- 11.3.2010 Pradip Pradhan
On behalf of the participants
S-74, Maitree Vihar, Post-rail Vihar
Bhubaneswar
M-99378-43482
To
The Governor, Orissa
Raj Bhawan
Bhubaneswar
Sub- Request for an immediate enquiry into the decisions and performance of the State Information Commission under Section 17 of RTI Act,- a Recommendation passed in the State-level Public Review held at Red Cross Bhawan, Bhubaneswar on 23.2.2010.
Sir,
We, the activists and concerned citizens came together in a State level Public Review meeting on “performance of Orissa Information Commission” held at Red Cross Bhawan on 23.2.2010, where the decisions and role of the Commission were subject to a public scrutiny. The meeting was organized under the joint aegis of Right to Food Campaign, Orissa, Orissa State Vigilance Council, Cuttack and NAMASKAR Organisation, Konark. While debating the various issues relating to procedure of hearing of the cases by the Commission and rate of disposal, we found that the Commission’s overall performance is quite poor and dismal. Consequently there prevails a lot of discontentment and frustration among the citizens who are fighting their cases before the Commission to seeki justice.
Some of the major issues relating to the performance and decisions of the Commissions are as follows.
A. Mr. M.C. Mishra, a complainant-citizen citing the details of his Complaint Case No 481 of 2006, said that the Commission fixed so many dates for hearing of his case that it became too expensive and difficult for an average complainant like him to come and attend the series of hearings held at a wide gap. In his case, the Commission has fixed the dates of hearing as many as 8 times before finally disposing it. We know that as per the RTI Act the onus of proof lies on the PIO and his attendance in a hearing is as such mandatory. Moreover, as per Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 it is not mandatory on the part of the complainant to attend the hearing. And in his absence, the hearing can be held and case disposed off.by the Commission keeping in view of course the interest of the absentee Complainant..But we see that in the absence of the Complainant, the Commission has been disposing the cases basing upon the onesided submission of the defaulting PIOs, and without imposing any penalty against the guilty PIO and/or without ordering the disclosure of complete information which was sought for by the Complainant.
B. The Commission has also failed to punish the guilty PIOs in so many cases. Letting scot free the PIOs who are proven guilty has encouraged them to persist in their habitual denial and ill-treatment towards the information seeking citizens. If allowed further the performance of such PIOs would grow more and more anti-RTI in the coming days, and they would emerge as the saboteurs of RTI in their respective offices. On the other hand, the citizens who have fought so long to assert their right to information would get totally frustrated with the entire RTI regime in the State.
C. It was also noted that the Commission without ordering the disclosure of complete information to the complainant, disposed the cases. As a result, the citizens are getting disillusioned about the very appellate mechanism under RTI that is in place in the State.
D. It has been observed that the cases are being heard after 6 to 12 months of their filing in the Commission. For instance, Mr. Pradip Pradhan had filed a complaint case in June 2007. Now after three years, the Commission has fixed the date for first hearing i.e., 15.3. 2010. Long delay in hearing of the cases spanning years renders irrelevant the very information sought for by the complainant-citizens.
F. The rate of disposal of the cases by the Orissa Commission is too poor in comparison to other Commissioners at Central or State levels.. It is distressing to know that the Commissioners of Orissa who enjoy more or less the same status, salary and privileges as entitled to the rest of the Commissioners across the country have fared much low. Mr. D. N. Padhi, State Chief Information Commissioner disposed only 42 cases per month while Mr. Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner only 36 cases per month. It shows how the Information Commissioners in Orissa are lethargic and ineffective in respect of their statutory function.
G. It was felt worrisome that the Commission deliberately refrains from entertaining Complaint Cases relating to violation of the Section 4 of the Act. Though a good number of complaint cases have been filed, the Commission has not heard a single case within last four years.
H. In many cases like CC No 481/2006, the Commission does not give notice of the decisions including any right of appeal to the complainant. This act of the Commission violates section 19(9) of the RTI Act. The participants alleged that they were not receiving the decisions from the office of the Commission despite repeated requests and letter sent to the office.
In fine, the participants expressed their utter resentment over the miserable and dismal performance of the Commission and demanded strong action against the Commission as required under Section 17 of RTI Act.
We therefore urge upon you to conduct an early enquiry into the role and performance of the Information Commissioners of Orissa and take appropriate action against them as befitting under Section 17 of RTI Act.
With regards
Venue- Bhubaneswar
Date- 11.3.2010 Pradip Pradhan
On behalf of the participants
S-74, Maitree Vihar, Post-rail Vihar
Bhubaneswar
M-99378-43482
Complaints and Memoranda to Governor Orissa
PAD
To
The Honble Governor, Govt. of Orissa 16.3.09
Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Complaint against the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner under Section 17(3) of RTI Act 2005
Hon’ble Sir,
Right to Food Campaign is a consortium of Civil Society Organisations spearheading the campaign for effective implementation of Right to Information Act 2005 in the State.
1) As you might know, the Section 17(3) of RTI Act 2005 confers the power on Governor to remove the State Chief Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, forthwith from his office on 6 numbers of grounds, including the ground that the Commissioner concerned is ‘unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body’. Now the time has come when the Governor should exercise this power in respect of the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner for omissions and commissions of serious nature amounting to his ‘infirmity of mind’ and thereby save a statutory body like Orissa Information Commission from increasing debility and degradation.
2) Now we do bring to your kind notice the following reasons on account of which the Hon’ble Governor ought to exercise his disciplining authority against the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner as required under Section 17(3) of RTI Act.
Annual Reports or heaps of non-sense:
The Section 25(3) of Act requires a State Commission to prepare an Annual Report on the implementation of the provisions of the Act in the concerned State. It says, “Each report shall state in respect of the year to which the report relates,—
(a) the number of requests made to each public authority;
(b) the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of this Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked;
(c) the number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, for review, the nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;
(d) particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act;
(e) the amount of charges collected by each public authority under this Act;
(f) any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of this Act;
(g) recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for the development, improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operationalising the right to access information.
The State Commission has so far brought out 3 Annual Reports, each for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, which are available on the website of the Commission. As required under Section 25(4) these reports might have already been laid before Orissa Legislative Assembly. However, if one scans these Reports, he or she would be simply astonished to find that none of the above mentioned obligatory topics has been given any minimal treatment in any of the Annual Reports. Instead each Annual Report is filled with a huge amount of abominable stuff, which shouldn’t under any circumstances enter the Annual Report of a statutory body like State Information Commission, such as big, big photographs of Commissioners inaugurating or addressing ceremonial events, role of Commission as a grant disbursing agency, tie-up with arbitrarily selected band of Government and non-Government agencies and imaginative, inflated figures without any supporting break-up whatsoever. The overall impression about the Commission which one gets after reading its Reports is that the Commission is a mega corporate body lavishly funding this or that activity organized by the chosen government and non-government agencies, the Chief Information Commissioner is the CEO of this corporate body and Commissioners are the celebrities of the first order in the State. Whatever scrappy data relating relevant matters have been mentioned in course of the Report are simply incomprehensible. For instance, the Annual Report for 2006-07 speaking about the mega success of the Commission funded Soochana Shibirs held during November 2006 across the State says, “About 61 thousand people visited the “Soochana Shibirs” held all over the State and 38800 R.T.I. applications were filed during the period mainly on the issues like allotment of houses under Indira Awas Yojana, B.P.L. Card issue, Land matters, Public Distribution System etc. The efforts of the State Commission seemed to have created the initial effect in a positive manner”. But without there being any break up of the figures like 61,000 visitors or 38800 RTI applications, how can a reader take for granted the authenticity of the same?
Thus, our first contention is that the Commission have conspicuously failed to discharge its statutory obligation to prepare the Annual Reports in the manner as required under Section 25(3) of the Act, and instead produced so-called Reports which are unbecoming and derogatory of the statutory stature of the State Information Commission.
(b) A case of Ominous Silence:
Though not mandated for the purpose the State Information Commission in the Annual Reports prepared by them have made abundant mention of what happened on the front of RTI in other countries of the world, judicial pronouncements by Supreme Court and RTI movements in other parts of the country. But coming home it has utterly failed to report, even in a cursory manner, a legislative milestone like Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 which on passed by Orissa Legislative Assembly was duly notified on Orissa Gazette on 29th May 2006. As is well known, under the impact of constant campaign by civil society groups coupled with a strong demand by a section of MLAs the Orissa Assembly had passed the above Amendment Rules which not only drastically reduced the exorbitant fee regime of the initial notification but also mandated the upkeep of a Register for citizens intending to inspect documents under Section 4 of the Act, right of the citizens to inspect the register maintained applications made under Section 6(1) of the Act and operationalisation of email for making application and supplying information under the Act. However, none of the Annual Reports made public by the Commission has mentioned even barely the Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006. Not only that. The Application Form, which was amended by the said Amendment Rules by way of incorporation of the provision for email into it, has so far not been recognised, let alone put into use, by the Commission. Despite repeated reminder about this lapse the Commission still continues to display the older application form on its website. Thus the Annual Reports of the Commission have maintained an ominous silence about an important legislative reform brought out by the Orissa Assembly, which is uncharacteristic of statutory body like Orissa Information Commission. Such ominous silence might be due to mala fide motive or ignorance of the Chief State Information Commissioner. Either way it speaks volumes about the ‘infirmity of mind’ of the Chief State Information Commissioner, and therefore his liability to be removed from the office forthwith.
(c ) Spread of Misleading and False Information:
According to RTI Act, the dissemination of incomplete, misleading or false information by a public authority is a wrong that attracts penalty clause (Sections 18 and 20). The State Information Commission is supposed to exercise its penal powers against the PIOs who are guilty of the violation of above kind. But on perusal of the Annual Report for 2005-06 prepared by the Commission, one gets convinced that the State Information Commission deserves to be punished first of all on account of misleading and false information spread by it. For instance, on page no.11 the Annual Report for 2005-06 says, But before this Act was passed by Indian Parliament, manystates had enacted their own legislation enabling citizens to have access to information as a matter of right. Table 2 provides information about various States including Orissa enacting legislation to provide a framework to impart information to citizens”. Then on Page-13, the following Table has been presented-
Source: Page 13, Annual Report for 2005-06 by Orissa Information Commission
The above Table entitled ‘Right To Information Legislation in India’ mentions inter alia that Orissa had enacted one Orissa Right To Information Act 2002. But as every conscious citizen knows it is a white lie. Since the Report mentions in more than one place about Orissa RTI Act 2002, it is presumed that such a mention was not a typographical error inadvertently committed by the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner, but an article of his conviction. Besides the above Table while giving a false information about non-existent Orissa RTI Act 2002 has, as a matter of fact, missed to mention 3 other States which had really enacted RTI Act at their level, such as Delhi (2001), Assam (2001) and J&K (2004).
After going through the above Report, the undersigned, out of curiosity, applied to the Public Information Officer of Orissa Information Commission for getting a copy of the so-called Orissa RTI Act 2002. Though more than one month has passed, the PIO has not supplied me any information in response. Concurrently the undersigned also applied to the PIO, Dept. of Law, Govt. of Orissa seeking a copy of Orissa RTI Act 2002. The PIO in response informed the undersigned that no such Act had ever been passed in Orissa in 2002. A similar response was also received from PIO, Orissa Legislative Assembly. Thus it is pretty clear that the Commission has published misleading and false information in the Annual Report of 2005-06. Under the circumstances, it is simply blasphemous that a statutory body like Orissa Information Commission indulge in the spread of such outrageously false and misleading information through its mandatory documents like Annual Report.
Since the ultimate destination of the Annual Reports prepared by the State Information Commission is the Orissa Legislative Assembly, it can be safely told that the Commission has also misled the august House and thereby breached its privilege by way of dishing out misleading and false information through its Annual Reports.
The dissemination of false and misleading information by the Commission has led to disastrous consequence for several public authorities too. For instance, following the footsteps of the Commission the State Institute of Rural Development, a training wing of Panchayati Raj Dept. has, in its training manual on "Transparency and Accountability" meant for PRI functionaries, reproduced verbatim the mention about Orissa RTI Act 2002. Thus thousands and thousands of PRI functionaries like Sarpanchs, Ward Members, GP Secretaries and Executive Officers who are the target group of the proposed training programme are all likely to be confused and misled by the patently false information that has already trickled down from the State Information Commission to the SIRD via Dept. of Panchayati Raj. Be that as it may, the Chief State Information Commissioner, who is the principal architect of the ill drafted Annual Reports deserves to be punished for disseminating false and misleading information among both Government agencies and public at large.
3) We have stated above only a few cases of omissions and commissions showing gross inefficiency of the Orissa Information Commission, especially of the Chief State Information Commissioner as revealed from the Annual Reports authored by them. If opportunity is allowed to the undersigned, we can show you many, many instances of such type which unmistakably point to the ‘infirmity of mind’ the Chief Commissioner suffers from and therefore makes him liable to be removed from his office forthwith as warranted under Section 17(3) of RTI Act 2005.
Looking forward to a judicious act on your part to save the Orissa Information Commission from further disgrace and infamy, which the Chief State Information Commissioner on account of his ‘infirmity of mind’ is likely to push to.
With regards
Yours faithfully
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
Pad
To
The Governor, Orissa, Date- 7.8.09
Raj Bhavan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Complaint against the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner, Orissa under Section 17(3) of RTI Act 2005 for deliberate spreading of misinformation on RTI Act and for hijacking to itself the mandatory domain of the State Government.
Hon’ble Sir,
“Right to Food Campaign, Orissa” is a consortium of Civil Society Organisations spearheading the campaign for effective implementation of Right to Information Act 2005 in the State for more than 4 years now.
1. During our campaign on RTI Act, we came across a bilingual compilation comprising both Oriya and English versions of RTI Act 2005, spaced in a total of 81 pages published by Orissa Information Commission. As evident from the note given at the end of the book, a total of its 90,000 copies were printed as on 28.2.2007 by Orissa Government Press, Cuttack. Thus for about two and half years now, the book has been in wide circulation throughout Orissa, used by the members of public, officials, civil society groups, media persons, RTI activists et el.
2. While going through the Oriya translation of the Act provided in the said book, we found a lot of misleading information concerning RTI Act being spread by it on different pages of the book. To illustrate the kind of anomalies we came across, let me present here only two examples for your kind perusal -
Example-1: Please go to lines 2 &3 under Section-18(1-a) on page-27 of the Oriya booklet. In the very place, where the expressions ‘Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer’ should have been there, one finds Oriya equivalents of ‘Central Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner’. As a result of such erratic translation, a reader would be misled to believe as if the Central or State Information Commissioner is duty bound to receive an application for information from any applicant directly, failing which an applicant is entitled to lodge a Complaint directly before the Commission under Section 18.
Example-2: Please go to Section 18(2) on Page 28. In the very place, where such expressions as ‘Central Information Commission or State Information Commission’ should have been there, one finds Oriya equivalents of ‘Central Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner’. Needless to say, in legal parlance there is a hell and heaven gap between these two sets of expressions. An honest reader would be misled to believe, as if the Central Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, is the sole authority to decide if there existed a ground for enquiry into a complaint or not, and conversely, as if the Chief Information Commissioner of the respective body or even the Commission itself doesn’t matter at all.
3. In the past, we had brought to the notice of the Orissa Information Commission about the types of flaws that marred the Oriya version of RTI Act, when the Commission had displayed it on their website. In fact, we had also published a booklet under the title “Operationalisation of RTI Act 2005 & Role of State Information Commission in Orissa- Status & Review” as early as 1st January 2007, where we had reproduced verbatim the above ‘authoritative’ Oriya translation after downloading it from Commission’s website, with a view to show by example the kind of anomalies it suffered from. For instance, we had shown on page 13 of our booklet, how at 3 places in Section-17 alone, the word ‘Governor’ has been wrongly replaced by the word ‘President’ and how there occurred two different errors in Section-18(1). On publication of out booklet, what the Commission did in turn was to correct 4 out of 5 errors pointed out by us, leaving in tact many other errors including the two examples as mentioned above. As a result of such erratic Oriya translation being circulated, countless citizens throughout the State have already been confused during last two and half years and many more are going to be confused in days to come about the actual intentions and provisions of RTI Act.
4. Sir, as you might know, as per Section-2 of ‘THE AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS (CENTRAL LAWS) ACT, 1973 (ACT NO. 50 OF 1973)’, an authoritative text of a Central Act/Rule in any of the regional languages mentioned in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution shall be published in the Official Gazette under the authority of President of India. It is therefore presumed that experts at several levels right from Rashtrapati Bhavan down to Government of Orissa must have been involved in the process of finalizing an authoritative Oriya translation of the Central Act, called RTI Act 2005. Secondly, it is further presumed that Orissa Information Commission before ordering its printing must have checked the Oriya version for its authenticity in every respect. But sadly enough, Orissa Information Commission despite having been informed in advance about the defective nature of the Oriya translation, ordered its printing to the extent of 90,000 copies at a huge cost to the public exchequer.
5. Further, it sounds ironical, an Information Commission, which is supposed to punish the concerned officers of public authorities for disclosing or disseminating false and misleading information to the public under Section 20 of RTI Act 2005, has itself been indulging in the deliberate perpetration of the said offence with impunity for last several years, as if it is determined to rout out the RTI Act from the soil of Orissa by way of misleading the citizenry about its real intentions and provisions. To our great shock, the individuals and groups associated with our platform have been greatly confused and confounded by the above-mentioned defective translation of Oriya Act as published in book-form by Orissa Information Commission.
6. Another pertinent matter that we would like you to address to is that there is a complete transgression of the mandate of RTI Act in respect of functions entrusted to Government of Orissa under its Section 26. The said Section clearly stipulates that any activity that concerns training and awareness on RTI Act including publication of dissemination material is to be undertaken by the State Government, while the State Information Commission should limit its activities to adjudication (Sections 18, 19 and 20) and drafting of annual report on the status of RTI Act in the State (Section 25). However, it has been observed right since inception that the jobs such as, awareness, training or publication etc. entrusted to the State Government have been hijacked by the State Information Commission. And as a result, not only the State Government has ever remained idle in respect of functions assigned to it, but also the Commission has been found floundering in respect of its mandatory functions as an adjudicatory-cum-reporting authority besides doing a mess of the functions snatched from the State Government, as indisputably evident from the instant case of publishing a mistranslation of RTI Act. This functional mishmash between the State Government and Information Commission needs to be sorted out at the earliest in the interest of breaking through the current RTI imbroglio pervading the State.
7. Under the circumstances, we appeal before you, who is the head of the Sate Government and as well the disciplinary authority over the State Information Commission, to order the following immediate measures in the interest of RTI Act itself-
a. Immediate cessation of the circulation by Orissa Information Commission of the controversial book containing defective Oriya translation of RTI Act ;
b. Notification in the Gazette and public media of a list of Errata on the omissions and commissions in the defective Oriya translation, for the knowledge of the members of public who might have been confused by the said mistranslation during last two and half years;
c. An Expert Committee to be set up to revise the defective translation so as to produce a better, popularly intelligible and mistake-free Oriya translation of RTI Act, and of related subordinate legislation like Central and State RTI Rules and RTI Guidelines of national level nodal agency;
d. An administrative enquiry into the role of persons and circumstances responsible for printing and publication of a defective Oriya translation of RTI Act by the Orissa Information Commission despite the prior knowledge of the latter about the possible occurrence of multiple errors in the said mistranslation;
e. Exemplary punishment as deemed proper to be meted out to the public servants so found guilty, along with recovery of money and interest thereon from them to compensate for the loss to the public exchequer done by them;
f. Stopping the Orissa Information Commission from hijacking any further the functions assigned to the State Government and enabling the latter to discharge dutifully all functions assigned to it under Section 26 of Act including the task of publication of all dissemination material on RTI Act and related matters.
With regards
Yours sincerely
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
CC:
- Mrs. Prativa Patil. President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavn, New Delhi
- Mr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, New Delhi
- Mr.Veerapa Moily, Minister for Law and Justice, Govt of India, New Delhi
- Cabinet Secretary (Ministry of Personnel), Govt. of India, New Delhi
- Mr. Naveen Patnaik, Chief Minister, Orissa, Bhubaneswar
- Minister for I&PR, Govt of Orissa, Bhubaneswar
To
The Governor, Orissa Date------
Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Complaint against State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner, Orissa for violation of section 20 of RTI Act under section 17 of RTI Act.
Hon’ble Sir,
With most respectfully, I would like to bring to your kind notice the following matter for your urgent action.
That, on 27.1.07, I had applied to the Public Information Officer, Office of Belapada Block of Bolangir district seeking information on levy sugar distribution, tally Register of store agent and issue Register for Panchayats. Getting no response, I filed a complaint case against defaulting PIO before the court of Orissa Information Commission under section 18 of the RTI Act with prayer for information and taking punitive action against the defaulting officers.
The Commission made several hearings on dated 10.4.08, 2.5.08, 12.8.08, 2.12.08. On 2.5.08, the Commission directed PIO and Block Development Officer of Belapara Block to allow me to inspect the information related to records/registers and after inspection, the same will be supplied to me. As per direction of the Commission, I visited the office of Belapada Block but could not show all the documents. However, the PIO supplied me information on 2.8.08 which are found as false and incomplete.
On 12.8.08, date fixed for hearing, I visited Commission office and found that the hearing has been adjourned due to some unknown reasons. I was also not intimated by the Commission office about this adjournment earlier.
On 2.12.08, the case was finally heard by Division Bench (both State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner). Unfortunately, I could not attend the hearing. On that day, The Commission did not impose any penalty against PIO and arbitrarily disposed the case without providing me complete information. The final order was sent me by post. Going through the final order, I got astonished how Commission disposed the case without giving me opportunity to present my views.
However, being aggrieved by the decision of the Commission, I against requested the Commission on dated 1.1.09 to reopen the case No 826 of 2007 and provide me the opportunity to submit all the documents before the commission about malpractice made by PIO. It is to be mentioned here that a complainant-citizen has right to appeal to the Commission against the decision of the Commission under section 19(9) of the Act. Though few months passed, I could not get any response from the Commission.
Again, on 27.5.09, I made another appeal to the Commission to reopen the case and provide me correct information and take action against PIO. Though more than two months have passed, I have not received any response from Commission.
So, I feel both the Commissioners have acted against the spirit of the Act. They have not only violated section 20 of the Act but have deprived me of getting justice. In this context, I would request you to constitute an enquiry in to the matter and take appropriate legal action against both the Commissioners. So that it will not be repeated again in the office of the Commission.
As I have heard, hundreds of citizens are getting frustrated and fed up over the wrong decision given by the Commission in our state. It has become common practice in the office of the commission.
With regards
Date- 12.8.09 Sushanta Kumar Sa
Venue-Patnagarh At/post-Patnagarh(Badapada)
Dist-Bolangir
Enclosures:
a. Copy of decision of the commission on dated 2.12.08
b. Copy of Appeal letter given to the Commission to reopen the case on 1.1.09
c. Copy of another Appeal given to the Commission to reopen the case on dated 27.5.09
-----------------------------------------------
To
The Governor, Orissa
Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Complaint against State Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commissioner, Orissa for their gross negligence in disposing of the complaint case dated 18.1.08
Hon’ble Sir
I Shri Srikar Behera, At-Kangan, Post-Padiabahal, Dist- Bolangir, draw your kind notice on the following matter for your urgent action.
That, on dated 18.1.08, I along with my friends Jatana Bariha ( At-Nagphena, Post-Juba, via-Patnagarh, Dist-Bolangir) and Bhagaban Behera ( At/Post-Bhanpur, Dist-Bolangir) had visited the office of District Inspector of School, Bolangir and District Forest Office, Forest Division, Bolangir seeking some information proactively disclosed under section 4 of the Act. In the office of DFO, I could not meet neither PIO nor DFO to get the information relating a project called Banaspati Bana Prakalpa undertaken in Khaprakhol Block of Bolangir district. I also met some officials who refused to give me any information as they were not authorized to do it.
Then we proceeded to the office of District Inspector of School, Bolangir to seek information about Block Grant allotted to different schools which comes under section 4 of the Act. We found the absence of PIO in the office. We could not get the information. There was also no display board on RTI in the office.
Finding no information from the both the office, we lodged a complaint to the State Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa to hear the case and supply us the information on 18.1.08. Though more than one and half year has passed, we could not get the information.
I feel that, long delay in adjudicating cases is the reflection of callous attitude of the Commission or inefficiency of the Commission. In this context, I would pray before His Excellency to constitute an enquiry in to the matter and take appropriate legal action against the Commission under section 17 of the RTI Act. .
Thanking you
Venue- Bolangir
Date- 13.8.09 yours sincerely
Srikar Behera
Enclosures: Copy of the Complaint case
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To
The Governor, Orissa
Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Complaint against State Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commissioner, Orissa for inordinate delay in disposing of the complaint case dated 18.1.08
Hon’ble Sir
I Shri Dharam Singh Dharua, At-Chaulbanjhi, Post- Maharapadar, via- Khaprakhol, Dist- Bolangir, would like to bring to your notice that on dated 18.1.08, I along with my friend Daitari Karuan ( village- Bharuamunda, Post-Bender, via-Harishankar Road, Dist-Bolangir) had visited District Watershed Office to inspect some documents under section 4 of the RTI Act. We could not get Public Information nor any officials cooperated with us to provide the information. We also could not see any arrangement made for citizens to access the information.
I returned back and lodged complaint to the State Information Commission, Orissa to get justice on same day. Though more than one and half year has passed since my complaint, the Commission has not heard my case. Even the first hearing has not been done at Commission level. I sincerely feel that this is gross negligence on the part of the Commission to make unending delay in fixing date for hearing.
In this context, I would request you to constitute an enquiry in to the matter and take exemplary action against the Commission under section 17 of the RTI Act. .
Thanking you
Venue- Khaprakhol
Date- 13.8.09 yours sincerely
Dharam Singh Dharua
Enclosures: Copy of the Complaint case
-----------------------------------------------------
To
The Governor, Orissa Date- 1.9.09
Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Complaint under Section 17 of RTI Act against State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner, Orissa for their abject failure in delivering justice to the undersigned.
Hon’ble Sir,
I Shri Nrusinha Mohapatra, At-Temple Road, Post-Sakhigopal , Dist-Puri bring to your kind notice the following matter seeking your urgent action.
I am a poor Priest doing some religious work in Sri Satyabadi Gopinath Jew Temple, Sakhigopal. This is the only source of my livelihood.
As per Report of Hon’ble Lokpal, Orissa under section 10 (5) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayukta Act,1995 ( copy of the report enclosed), on 29.12.06, I had applied to the Public Information Officer, office of Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar seeking information relating to administration, maintenance of Seve Puja of the diety and accounts of Sri Satyabadi Gopinath Jew Temple {532P(M)}. The Application was received by PIO on 29.12.06. As per Section 7(1) of RTI Act, information is to be supplied within 30 days of the date of application. But PIO sent me the first intimation regarding the fees to be deposited (i.e. Rs. 58/- only) after a lapse of several months i.e. on 11.4.07( vide letter no. 4213). I deposited the required fees and was given some information which contain 29 pages. . If the days of delay beyond the stipulated period of 30 days are counted, it would be around 75 days.
While going through the information, I found most of them are incomplete. On 23. 4. 07, I made a complaint to State Chief Information Commissioner with a prayer to ensure supply of genuine and complete information to me.
The case (C.C. No. 485/2007) was first heard in the court of State Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa on 15.2.08. On the first hearing the Commission directed the PIO to refund Rs.58/-, which was illegally collected from me, and to supply complete relevant information free of cost. I was also directed by the Commission orally to file an application about the information which has not been supplied by PIO.
Then, I applied for information on 18.2.08. The PIO provided a list of information containing serial no. 1 to 33 submitted by Executive Officer. I found these information as false document.
On 24.4.08, day of second hearing, at first, the Commission imposed penalty on Dharmendra Kar, Junior Assistant to the tune of Rs.1750/- for 7 days’ delay in supplying information to the PIO. In the said hearing, it was also found that the PIO had made unprecedented delay of 11 months in supplying information. The Commission gave him last opportunity to explain delay. The Commission again gave them further time to supply full information and fixed the next date fir hearing on 3.7.08.
On 3.7.08, the case was again heard by State Chief Information Commissioner. On that day, PIO and referred gave a mischievous plea that the one of the auditors in Audit Section, who kept all the documents in Almirah died, and so the concerned information couldn’t be obtained in right time and supply of the said information got delayed. Hearing it, the Commission did not penalize referred PIO i.e., Audit Superintendent. But I argued that the whole episode of death of the concerned auditor, his signature in salary register and documents received by whom should be enquired to trace out the fact. The Commission did not hear any thing. I again also said that despite direction given by Commission in the last hearing, PIO has supplied me false and fraud information. Immediiately, PIO, Mr. Amar Kumar Das said that the Executive Officer of the Satyabadi Gopinath Dev Endowment has supplied me fraud information. I am not responsible for it. It is astonishing that the Commission said me to file FIR in the local Police station against the person who supplied false information. However, the Commission noticed to the Executive Officer to appear before the court of the State Information Commission in the next hearing dated 18.9.08.
On18.9.08 the case was again heard, and this time by Mr. Jagadananda, State Information Commissioner, who was new to this case. He neither heard anything nor asked the Executive Officer, Temple administration about anything. I put my argument that action should be taken against the Executive Officer responsible for supplying incomplete and fraud information to the PIO. Then, the State Information Commissioner did not hear anything. On compensation which I have been demanding since long due to heavy loss while fighting the case I was asked to produce my submission in the next hearing
On 29.1.09, the day of final hearing, without imposing any penalty or ensuring supply of complete information to me, the division bench of the Commission unilaterally disposed of the case.
Sir, despite my hard effort, I couldn’t get the information. There is a lot of irregularities and corruption in temple administration. The information that I sought for could have brought it to public notice. But Orissa Information Commission by closing its eyes to my information requirements seems to push it under the carpet under pressure of the officials of Commissioner of Endowments.
The first and foremost duty of the Commission should be to ensure supply of genuine and complete information to the citizens by the PIOs, or alternatively to penalize them for their failure to do so. The State Information Commission has patently failed to discharge such a duty, which shows the inefficiency of the concerned Information Commissioners.
I do request you to make an enquiry in the matter and exercising the power under Section 17 of the RTI Act to take appropriate action against the guilty in the greater interest of implementation of RTI Act in the state.
Thanking you
Yours sincerely
Nrusingha Mohapatra
Sakhigopal, Puri
Text of Memorandum submitted to the Hon’ble Governor, Orissa by RTI Activists of the state on 6.11.09
To
The Governor, Orissa
Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Demand for action against Mr. D. N. Padhi Chief Orissa Information Commissioner under Section 17 of RTI Act 2005 for his dubious role in spreading false, misleading and self-glorifying information in the mass media about himself and others.
Hon’ble Sir,
1) We the RTI activists working for effective implementation of Right to Information Act in Orissa wish to bring to your kind notice the following matter for an urgent action at your end under Section 17 of RTI Act.
2) On 29th Oct ’09, we came across a news item (copy enclosed) published in several newspapers including ‘Pragativadi’ (Oriya daily) and ‘Ama Rajadhani’ (Oriya daily), which was in fact a press release issued by Orissa Information Commission. The said press release mentioned that Orissa Information Commission had been chosen among the best five Information Commissions of the country while Mr. D.N.Padhi, Orissa Chief Information Commissioner as the best among all the Information Commissioners as per a country-wide survey conducted by Magsaysay Award winner Mr.Arvind Kejriwal a leading RTI expert and the Founder of PCRF (Public Cause Research Foundation), New Delhi. It was further mentioned in the Commission’s press release that Mr. Padhi would be offered the best Information Commissioner Award by the end of November 2009. Moreover, the press release further went on to say that Mr. Arvind Kejriwal had congratulated Mr. Padhi for winning the said Award.
3) However, when contacted by RTI activists from Orissa about the matter, Mr. Arvind Kejuriwal on behalf of National Awards Secretariat contradicted the above claim made in Orissa Commission’s press release. In a press release specifically brought out for the purpose on 2nd November, Mr. Kejriwal clarified as follows:
“Press Statement
National RTI Awards Secretariat denies it has “congratulated” some information commissioners for being “best” or “topping the rankings” of information commissions … and clarifies that rankings, released by the Secretariat to the media on October 21, 2009, are interim rankings, subject to change in the coming days; final rankings will be decided by the Jury on November 27, 2009.
“No question of congratulating or “awarding” any information commission, based on interim rankings; we are still receiving public feedback that can significantly change the rankings,” says the Secretariat.
“We distance ourselves from all reports that seek to prejudge the final outcome of the nationwide study of information commissions and commissioners,” says the Secretariat”.
4) We feel that Orissa Information Commission, which is supposed to act as the defender of the right to correct and authentic information, has itself, by way of issuing the abovementioned concocted press release, spread misleading information across the people of the State and country just to project a self-glorified image of theirs. As you might know, the release of any wrong and misleading information on the part of any public authority is an offense under Section 20 of RTI Act, inviting penalty and disciplinary action against the concerned official. We feel utterly dismayed at how a quasi-judicial body avowed to ensure transparency and accountability in the administration is itself instrumental in spreading such misleading information.
5) As per Section 15(4) of RTI Act, “The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of State Information Commission shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner”. So you are requested to sack first of all Mr. D.N. Padhi, State Chief Information Commissioner from his office under Section 17 of RTI Act for his prime role in the spread of false and misleading information as mentioned above. Secondly, the Press Release of the State Information Commission has also mentioned the name of Mr.Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner, whom the nodal RTI officer of Central Govt Mr.S.K. Sarkar has reportedly congratulated besides Mr.Padhi for winning the RTI award. You are therefore requested to enquire into the complicity of Mr.Jagadanand in the preparation and circulation of the objectionable press release and take necessary action against him as deemed appropriate under Section 17 of RTI Act 2005.
Thanking you
Date: 6.11.09 Yours sincerely
Pradip Pradhan Suvendu Roy Lingaraj . Satapathy
Social Activist Social Activist Social Activist
Encl:
- Copy of Oriya news clipping carrying the Orissa Information Commission’s press release published in Pragativadi, and Amarajadhani, Oriya dailies dated 29. 11. 09.
- Copy of English translation of the above Oriya news clipping prepared by Mr.Sandip Das Verma from USA.
- Copy of 2 clarifying Press Releases mailed by National RTI Awards Secretariat, New Delhi in the wake of Orissa Information Commission’s press release.
- Copy of the mail from Mr.Arvind Kejriwl to Mr.Pradip Pradhan on the press release clarifying the Awards Committee’s position.
No comments:
Post a Comment