Public Hearing
On
“Mal-functioning of Odisha Information
Commission”
A Report
Venue- Lohia Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Date- 22.8.25
Organised by: Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
(OSAA)
Plot No. 101, Madhusudan Nagar, Bhubaneswar
Contact No.- 6370216463
Public Hearing on “Malfunctioning of
Odisha Information Commission”
A Report
1.
Introduction
On 12th October, 2005, the
Right to Information Act empowered citizens to exercise their fundamental right
to information by accessing information from public authorities. The preamble
of the RTI Act states, “democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information, which are vital to its functioning
and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their
instrumentalities accountable to the governed.” The
20 years of implementation of the RTI Act have witnessed a massive use of the
RTI Act by a cross-section of people in seeking various types of information,
demanding accountability from public authorities, and enforcing transparency in
administration. Many have used it as the biggest tool to fight against
corruption.
RTI Act has mandated independent
functioning on Information Commission with wide-ranging powers including
hearing and disposing complaint/ Second Appeal Cases, requiring Public
Authorities to supply information, directing for inquiry in case there is
some reasonable grounds, imposing penalty on erring PIOs, directing Public
Authorities for awarding compensation to aggrieved appellants/complaints,
preparing Annual Report and recommending Public Authorities for bringing
necessary changes to comply provisions of RTI Act.
Since 2006, Odisha
Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (OSAA), a platform of Civil Society Groups and RTI
Activists working for effective implementation of RTI Act in Odisha, has been
conducting massive awareness programs to sensitise the people about
RTI Act, their right to access information, and the procedure to be followed
for filing RTI Applications, Appeals and Complaints. Besides that, OSAA also
undertakes periodic monitoring of the Information Commission's functioning,
which includes organising Public Hearings, analysing disposed SA and Complaint
cases, publishing reports, and sharing them with all stakeholders as a matter
of transparency.
This public hearing was organised
on 22.8.25 in Lohia Academy, Bhubaneswar, capital city of Odisha as part of
on-going efforts to debate and discuss issues relating to functioning of
the Information Commissioners appointed in April, 2025, effectiveness and
standard of orders passed by the Chief Information Commissioner and other five
Information Commissioners, issues relating to procedure followed for hearing
and disposal of cases and transparency maintained in the office of Information
Commission.
It deserves to mention here that
many issues were raised in public domain and social media about mal-functioning
of Information Commissioners like arbitrary dismissal of 800 cases without
hearing, issuing absurd notice in 6000 pending cases to appellant seeking their
willingness whether they want their cases to be heard, lack of knowledge about
provisions of RTI Act, display of inefficiency during hearing of the case,
mindless orders passed by the Commission etc. disposing the cases without
ensuring presence of PIO and FAA, non-imposition of penalty on erring PIO
etc.
2. Proceedings of the Public Hearing
The
Public Hearing commenced with Pradip Kumar Pradhan, State Convener of Odisha
Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (OSAA), delivering a welcome address and introductory
remarks about the objective of the public hearing, followed by presentations
made by RTI Activists and aggrieved Appellants/Complainants. Around 150 participants
hailed from different districts, had participated in the Public Hearing. Sri Rabi Das, Senior Journalist, Sri Satya Prakash Nayak, Journalist,
Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj and Ms. Amrita Johari from NCPRI, New Delhi, Azad Hind
Panigrahi, retired Law Officer, Govt. of Odisha, Sri Sibanand Roy, Senior
Advocate, were present in the meeting and shared their views/opinions/recommendations
to the Govt. List of participants
who presented critical issues about the functioning of the Commission is
attached
3. Important issues pertaining to the malfunctioning of the Information Commission, presented in the Public Hearing.
3.1. Arbitrary dismissal of 800 Complaint cases and Second Appeal cases by the Commission without hearing.
Sri Pratap Mohanty and Archer Ardhendu Narayan
Behera, RTI Activists, presented the information obtained as of July 21, 2025,
from the office and the Odisha Information Commission under the RTI Act,
stating that the Commission had dismissed 800 Complaint cases without hearing.
The details are as follows.
|
Name of SCIC and SIC |
Total no. of cases dismissed without hearing
from May to July, 2025 |
|
Manoj Parida, SCIC |
259 |
|
Sushant Mohanty, SIC |
14 |
|
Jagannath Rath, SIC |
242 |
|
Pranabandhu Acharya, SIC |
68 |
|
Pabitra Mandal, SIC |
130 |
|
Kalpana Patnaik, SIC |
88 |
|
Total |
801 |
As per Odisha Information
Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2006 {Rule-6(4)}, “the Commission shall not reject the complaint,
unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant.
They also presented the fact that many complainants have gone to the High Court
against the Commission's decision. Ms Nibedita Roy, who had filed a complaint
on 29.9.2021 against the PIO, Office of Chauliganj Police Station, Cuttack, for
denial of information about the FIR filed against her husband and CCTV Footage,
was informed that the Commission dismissed her case (CC No. 850/21) without
hearing on 3.5.2025. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Commission, she
filed a writ petition No. 15566/25 before Hon’ble High Court, Orissa,
challenging the said decision. On 21 July 2025, the High Court, taking
cognisance of the Writ petition, issued a notice to the Information Commission
for a reply.
3.2. Subash Pradhan, RTI Activist of Balasore district said in the public hearing that his five no. of important complaint cases filed by him ( CC No. 841/21, 532/21, 960/21, 799/21, 800/21) were dismissed by the Sri Manoj Parida, SCIC without hearing. While rejecting complaint cases , the Commission in its order referred the judgement of Supreme Court on State Information Commission, Manipur vs State of Manipur in Civil Appeal case No. 10787-10788 of 2011). But in this judgement, the hon’ble Apex Court has never passed any order for closing the cases filed under section 18 of the RTI Act without hearing. The Commission has misinterpreted the judgement of the Supreme Court and dismissed the cases mindlessly. Almost all Information Commissioners are law-ignorant persons and hardly have any expertise to hear the cases and interpret the law. He also said that he had made a complaint to the Hon’ble Governor, Odisha under section 17 of the RTI Act to take action against Sri Manoj Parida, State Chief Information Commissioner. He also shared that many citizens have approached the hon’ble High Court, Orissa for quashing the illegal decision passed by the Information Commissioners. Taking cognisance of these cases, the High Court has issued notice to Odisha Information Commission seeking reply.
It was recommended that the
Commission should hear all the dismissed 800 cases and provide justice to the
complainants/appellants.
3.3.Illegal
and arbitrary notice issued by the Information Commission for closure of 6000
Complaint and Second Appeal cases
Sri Srikant Pakal, an RTI
Activist, along with many aggrieved citizens, flagged off this issue of the
trend of closure of cases initiated by the Information Commission in thousands
and presented it in the public hearing, showing a copy of the notice issued to
them by the Information Commission. It is mentioned that “The full
Commission in the meeting dated 13.6.25 reviewed the pending cases in the
Commission. It was noted that there are nearly 6000 cases, pertaining to year
2021 and 2022 which are waiting for hearing. It was noted that during hearing
many of the appellants are neither appearing nor seeking adjournment. X xx x x
x x. The Commission has decided to dispose of all these old pending cases and
second appeal/complaint as closed unless the appellant/ complainant
specifically wishes to continue the matter. The appellant is requested to
inform the Commission on or before 15th August, 2025 if he wishes to
continue the matter. Such intimation can be sent to the Commission by ordinary
post or e-mail.” They stated that this notice is itself illegal and
arbitrary in the eyes of the law, as there is no such provision in the RTI Act
or the Odisha RTI Rules for issuing a notice to the appellant/complainant
seeking their willingness for the continuity or discontinuity of the cases or
closure of the cases without hearing. As per Odisha Information
Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2006 – {Rule-9(3)}, “ where the
Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to
which the appellant or complainant is being prevented from
attending the hearing of the Commission, then the Commission may afford
the appellant or the complainant as the case may be, another
opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other
action as it may deem fit.” Many people could not
understand such a type of letter, as they had never seen one in the last twenty
years of the Commission's operation. Some appellants and complainants have
written letters expressing their willingness to hearing of their cases. They
demanded that the notices issued to the appellant/complainant be completely
withdrawn as they are deemed illegal. Sri Archer Ardhendu Narayan Behera said
that the arbitrary closure of the cases by the Commission without hearing is
(i) violation of fundamental right of the Citizens- Article 19(1)(a)
guarantees the right to information, (b) Violation of RTI Act-The Act does not
empower the Commission to close complaints without hearing the complainants, (c
) evading statutory duties- denying transparency and accountability.
This issue was debated and discussed at length, and everybody demanded
its withdrawal.
3.4.Sri Pradip Pradhan, RTI Activist, filed RTI Application dated 17.7.25 in the office of Odisha Information Commission seeking a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Commission held on 13.6.25 in which the Commission reviewed the pending cases and the total no. of cases in which notice has been issued to the appellants and complainants till date of supply of information. On 25.7.25, the PIO replied that “such information was not available. The full Commission meets every week on Friday to informally discuss office related matters and decisions, if any, are taken verbally. On 13.6.25, the full Commission met in their usually weekly meeting to discuss official matters. No formal or official minutes were as such issued.” As the Commission is a quasi-judicial body and general superintendence of the Commission lies with the state Chief Information Commission under section 15 (4) of the RTI Act, the Commission should maintain proper reporting when it takes any vital decision affecting the citizens. The said information should be proactively disclosed under section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
It was recommended that the
Odisha Information Commission should immediately withdraw this notice and hear
all 6,000 cases by providing a reasonable opportunity for being
heard.
3.5.Denial
of information by the Information Commission- A threat to transparency
The
Information Commission is the guardian of transparency. It has been established
to protect the law and enforce transparency within the system. However, it was
found that over the last four months, the office of the Information Commission
has rejected several RTI requests, citing various grounds, including Section
8(1)(j), which are unwarranted and undesirable. Information Seekers
presented the following cases during the public hearing.
a. Sri Tanay Mohanty, RTI Activist, Balasore, had filed an RTI Application in the office of Odisha Information Commission seeking information about the total amount spent for renovation and reconstruction work in the office of Odisha Information Commission, the name of the agency selected to carry out the work, details of payments made so far to vendors etc. In response to the RTI Application, the PIO responded on 20.6.25 that “the information sought for is under examination. More time is required for the supply of information.” Again, on 26.6.25, the PIO replied that more time is required for the supply of information. Finally, on 7.7.25, the PIO replied that the said information cannot be supplied on the grounds of section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. Sri Tanay Mohanty had filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority, seriously objecting to the grounds taken by the PIO for not supplying the information and seeking a direction for the supply of information.
b. Sri Maheswar Mohanty of Mayurbhanj district had submitted an RTI
Application dt. 16.6.25 in the office of Odisha Information Commission seeking
information relating to LTC (Leave Travel Concession) availed by Sushant
Mohanty and Jagannath Rath, State Information Commissioner and the total amount
received by them, details of expenses made for each work undertaken out of the sanctioned
amount of Rs. 5.43 crore and the total balance amount. On 7.7.25, the PIO
responded, denying the supply of information about LTC, citing
the ground as personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and
supplying incomplete information on point no.2. On 14.7.25, Sri Maheswar
filed a first appeal before the FAA, objecting to the response of the PIO on
the following ground.
i.
“The information about expenses made towards
LTC of the Information Commissioners are not the nature of the personal
information. The expenses are made from state exchequer which is
taxPayers money. The mandate of RTI Act is to empower
citizens to access information relating to expenses of even a single
pie made from state exchequer. While adjudicating Second Appeal Case No.
1271/22 (Pradip Pradhan VS PIO, Odisha State Cooperative Bank), the Information
Commission has taken a view that “ the information with
regard to medical reimbursement though personal but relates to transparency and
public interest. Sometimes employees make medical reimbursement by
submitting false bills and by that process public money is misutilised. a citizen
has the right to know about proper utilisation of public money. Larger public
interest is in fact involved”. So the information about LTC expenses is
not personal and does not qualify to be rejected under section 8 (1) (j) of the
RTI Act. The PIO with malafide intention has denied the information.
ii.On
point No. 2 and 3 (details of expenses made for each work/Project
and total balance amount following budget provision of Rs. 5.43 crores),
the PIO remained silent and did not provide any information. It is alleged that
the PIO deliberately kept the information secret.”
The FAA passed the order by upholding the decision of the PIO. On 12.8.25, Maheswar filed a Second Appeal before the Odisha Information Commission for urgent hearing and supply of information.
C. Pradip Kumar Pradhan submitted RTI Application dated 17.7.25 in the office of Odisha Information Commission seeking copy of Complaint case registered as CC No. 475/2021) and Second Appeal petition registered as SA No. 1964/21 in the Commission along with all annexures submitted by me and copy of decision passed by the Commission duly authenticated by PIO, Provide a copy of Complaint petition along with all annexures (Case No. 370/2021) filed by me which was disposed on 7th May 2025 and copy of Second Appeal petition along with all annexures. As Sri Pradip Pradhan could not trace his complaint and Second Appeal Cases, he sought them from the Commission by filing an RTI. Astonishingly, on 31.7.25, the PIO refused to supply the information, stating that” the said information is not information under section 2(j) of the RTI Act. As the document originated from the applicant and was filed by him, it should be considered the custodian. In such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to receive copies of these documents as a matter of right. The stand has already been decided in the Commission ‘s decision dated 21.11.2013 in SA No. 770/2012.” Sri Pradhan also questioned why the copy of the complaint and second appeal would not be shared with the complainant/appellant himself, when the document belongs to him. Sri Pradhan also shared his experience that, as an RTI Activist, he had not received such a response from the Commission in his career.
d. Sri Amitav Chand, RTI Use of Kendrapara district, shared how the PIO of Odisha Information Commission had harassed him. On 7.6.25, he submitted an RTI application to the office of the Information Commission, seeking details of the utilisation of contingency funds, a copy of the Bill, and vouchers. Showing a blank Form-C (intimation of rejection), he stated that the PIO had rejected the RTI Application without citing any grounds. He said that the PIO has deliberately sent me such a letter to harass me. If the office of the Commission harasses the applicant, how will the Commission enforce transparency and protect the law? Neither the Information Commissioners nor their staff show a minimum respect for the law, and are very careless towards the RTI Act. It is worth mentioning here that Form-C (Intimation for Rejection) has been prescribed by the Odisha RTI Rules, 2005, with various grounds mentioned for rejecting an RTI Application, although there is no such provision under the RTI Act. However, the PIO has not mentioned any grounds for rejecting the RTI Application.
e. Sri Srikant Pakal, RTI Activist, presented that he had filed an RTI Application dated 26.7.25. He submitted an RTI Application in the office of the Odisha Information Commission, seeking a copy of the regulation/order/circular issued by SCIC under Section 15(4) of the RTI Act. On 31.7.25, the PIO responded that no such document is available. It appears that the state Chief Information Commissioner has not established any regulations for managing the office, handling cases, and distributing responsibilities. The office of the Commission is running halfheartedly, like a Block Office.
4.
Impugned order mindlessly passed by the Odisha Information Commission.
4.1.
Amitav Chand, Social Activist, Kendrapara
Mr. Amitav Chand, a social activist from Ramnagar village in Kendrapara district, presented his case of tragedy, harassment, and humiliation to the Information Commission in his pursuit of obtaining information under the RTI Act. Despite his five-year fight, he could not obtain the information. He stated that on 24.2.20, he had submitted an RTI application to the office of the Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack, seeking a copy of Arun Kumar Dhara's H.S.C. certificate and marksheet, which he was studying in B.K. Academy, Saharia of Kendrapara district. As the PIO and the First Appellate Authority did not respond to the RTI Application and the first appeal, respectively, he filed a Second Appeal before the Odisha Information Commission for Justice. His case was registered as SA No. 1773/2020. Sri Bikram Senapati, the then State Information Commissioner, fixed the date of 30.6.22 for the hearing. As the PIO remained absent without submitting any documents, the Information Commission fixed another hearing for 2.9.22. As the PIO did not respond, the Commissioner, Sri Senapati, fixed another date, 12.10.22, for the hearing. As the PIO again remained absent after notice being issued thrice, Sri Bikram Senapati, the State Information Commissioner, was constrained to impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the PIO and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant, directing the PIO to supply the information within 15 days. Despite the Commission's order, the PIO of the Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack, did not supply any information. Even the Chairman of the BSE refused to comply with the Commission's order. He again filed a complaint dated 10.12.22 before the Odisha Information Commission to take action against the PIO as well as the authority of the Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack, for non-compliance with the Commission's order. After three years, Sri Jagannath Rath, State Information Commissioner, fixed a date of 25.6.25 for the hearing of the Complaint case No. 1298/2022. After receiving notice from the office of the Commission, he sent a written submission describing how he had been harassed for five years to obtain the information. On 25th June, 2025, the Commission heard the case. During the hearing of the case, the PIO present raised the issue of personal information and refused to supply the information. The Information Commissioner, Sri Jagannath Rath, did not ask anything about the non-compliance with the Commission's order passed on 12.10.22. nor sought any opinion from the complainant on the issue raised by the PIO. The Commission also did not consider the written submission that he had filed. The Commission rejected his complaint without inquiring into it. He has submitted a complaint to the Governor of Odisha under Section 17 of the RTI Act, seeking an inquiry against Jagannath Rath, SIC, for infirmity of mind and his incapacity to hear and adjudicate the case.
4.2.Dusmant
Acharya, RTI Activist, Kendrapara
This is the
case of unruly behaviour by Sri Manoj Parida, the State Chief Information
Commissioner, as shown to Dusmant Acharya, and the mindless dismissal of the SA
case by Sri Parida without understanding the essence of the RTI Act.
This case was presented at
the public hearing by Sri Pratap Mohanty, an RTI Activist, on behalf of Dusmant
Acharya. He could not attend the hearing due to his prolonged illness. An extract
of his presentation is as follows.
On 16.5.25, Dusmant
Acharya visited the Commission’s Office to attend the hearing of his Second
Appeal Case No. 1931/2021. He arrived at 11:45 am, a little late due to a
long journey from the remote Rajkanika block of Kendrapara district to
Bhubaneswar by bus, and heard the news that Sri Manoj Parida's SCIC had closed.
He was astonished that the hearing was closed within just 45 minutes. Upon
inquiry, it was found that Sri Manoj Parida had only fixed 10 cases for hearing
and did not hear anything. He just asked about cases and closed it.
He went to his officer's chamber to discuss his case. When he entered his
chamber, he found Sri Parida surrounded by his outside guests, relaxing over a
cup of tea and gossiping. It was like a big tea party hosted by Sri Parida. When
he entered his office chamber, Sri Parida got angry and started behaving like a
colonial master. Sri Parida started charging Dusmant in a high tone,
saying, “Do you think the Court will run on your own wish. Why are you
disturbing?” Then he said that whenever I came for a hearing years ago, I was
late due to the long distance, and the former Information Commissioners
provided me with an opportunity for a hearing. He did not listen to anything
and never tried to understand his problem. He was humiliated and returned
without discussion about the outcome of the hearing or any order that the
Commission may have passed.
Having been humiliated, Sri Dusmant Acharya filed a complaint dt. 12.6.25 before the Hon’ble Governor under section 17 of the RTI Act seeking legal action against Sri Parida. In the meantime, he received a copy of the Commission's decision and found it closed without any order for the supply of information. Then, Sri Dusmant filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court, challenging the decision of the State Chief Information Commissioner. Hearing writ petition no.21179 of 2025, the Hon’ble Court passed order dt. 8.8.25 directing to petitioner Dusmant Acharya to file an application before the Commission for the recall of the impugned order, and the Commission will hear the case, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the case as per the law. While hearing Writ Petition No. 21179/25 on 8.8.25, the Hon’ble High Court has directed the State Chief Information Commissioner to rehear the case and dispose of it on merit.
4.3.Sarbeswar Behura, RTI Activist, Jajpur
Sarbeswar Behura presented how Sri Manoj Parida, the State Chief Information Commissioner, mindlessly disposed of his second appeal cases without ensuring the provision of information. The cases presented by him are as follows.
On 12.10.20, he had
submitted an RTI Application in the office of the Tahasildar, Dharmashala,
Jajpur district, seeking information relating to mining leases granted to leaseholders.
The PIO and the First Appellate Authority did not respond to his application
and first appeal, respectively. Then he filed a second appeal dt. 4.2.21 before
the Information Commission for justice. After four years, the State Chief
Information Commissioner fixed the date of June 9, 2025, for the hearing of SA
No. 245/21. During the hearing, neither the PIO nor the First Appellate
Authority was present. They also did not file any submission. Sarbeswar
appeared before the Commission and said that he had not yet received any
information. He also appealed to the Commission to set another date for the
hearing and impose a penalty on the PIO for failing to supply the
information. The Commission was assured that it would pass appropriate
orders. When he received the order, it was found that the Commission had closed
the case, stating that the information had been supplied and no penalty on the
PIO was required. But he has not received any information. Four years’
struggle to get justice ended in vain.
Sarbeswar stated that similar impugned orders in SA No. 561/21, 562/21, and 131/21 were passed by Sri Manoj Parida without ensuring the provision of information. In all these cases, neither PIO nor FAA appeared before the Commission. Sri Parida also did not issue a show-cause notice due to their non-appearance. These are the most useless and third-grade orders of the Commission ever passed during the previous period of the Chief Information Commissioners.
a.While sharing his experience about issues relating to the hearing of disposal of cases by the Information Commission, Sri Pradhan showed a copy order of two cases passed by Sri Manoj Parida and how the orders of the Commission are substandard and mindlessly written without application of mind. He presented the order of the Commission passed in SA Case No. 2329/21. The exact text of the order is presented below
“ 1. The matter pertains to the year 2021
2. Both
parties are absent.
3.
The respondent had committed in an earlier case, on the same subject,
that the necessary information will be provided to the appellant on or
before, 30.5.24. This may be done by registered post.
4. Hence, the second appeal
is disposed and matter closed at Commission’s level”
This was a case about denial of information by the PIO and FAA of Department of General Administration and PG, Govt. of Odisha. The information was about leasing out land to a private education institution. The Commission was expected to hear the case in length by ensuring presence of both the parties and allowing sharing of their respective submissions each other and conduct an inquiry whether earlier order of the Commission complied by the PIO and passed appropriate order with direction for supply of information after hearing from the appellant and impose penalty on PIO for non-supply of information under section 20(1) of the RTI Act. But on 19.5.25., the Commission did not hear anything and simply passed an order which does not carry any meaning.
b.He shared
another case of impugned order passed by Sri Manoj Parida. The text of
SA Case no. 1964/21.
1.
The matter pertains to the year 2021
2. The
appellant was absent. However, he had submitted his written submission. The
respondent Maheswar Sethy, PIO-cum-AIG, office of Director, Vigilance, Odisha
is present.
3. On
perusal of available records, I find that the respondent has already supplied
the information sought.
4. The present second appeal
is therefore dismissed, and matters are closed at the Commission’s level.
“
Sri Pradhan said that he could not understand the content and meaning of this decision. This was a case of Second Appeal filed against the PIO and FAA of the Director, Vigilance, Cuttack. The information sought for allegations of vigilance cases against Class-1 officers. The PIO refused to provide the information. The Commission was expected to inquire why and how the information would be denied and on what grounds. The Commission should also note down the details of submissions and arguments filed by the parties, as well as the Commission's final order after analysing the content of the information and determining whether it is eligible for supply or not. But the order passed by the Commission carried no meaning and was completely useless without application of mind. Sri Pradhan also shared a few more cases of how Sri Manoj Parida.
C. Sri Pradhan presented another case about a mindless order passed by Sri Manoj Parida, SCIC, without understanding the law. Sri Pradip Pradhan had submitted an RTI Application dated 26.11.20 to the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, Khurda district, seeking information about the land record and a copy of the inquiry report of the Tahasildar. As the PIO did not respond, he filed his first appeal before the FAA and then his second appeal before the Information Commission, dated 1.3.21. After four years, the State Chief Information Commissioner heard the case on 26.6.25. The Commission passed the order to the First Appellate Authority to hear the case and dispose of it without fixing any date. Though two months had passed, the FAA neither heard the case nor provided the information. When Pradip Pradhan apprised the office of the Commission about the non-compliance with the Commission's order, the response was that nothing could be done as the case had been closed. After waiting for four years, he was still unable to obtain the information. The Chief Information Commissioner has precariously failed to provide justice to information seekers. He suggested that the Commission should not dispose of the case unless the information is completely provided.
Sri Archer Ardhendu Narayan Behera, a Social Activist from Baragarh district, presented his painful experience of how Sri Pranabandhu Acharya, SIC, is incapable of conducting hearings properly. He stated that four numbers of Second Appeal and Complaint cases were posted for hearing in the Commission on August 22, 2025. Sri Pranabandhu Acharya, SIC conducted the hearing. As the appellant, he was present at the hearing and presented the case. During the hearing, he drew the Commission's attention to how the PIOs provided incomplete and false information and rejected RTI Applications on the grounds of their voluminous nature.
The information sought was
about liquor licenses issued in Baragarh district by the office of the
Superintendent of Excise, as well as the plantation programme undertaken by the
DFO, Baragarh, etc. Hearing both parties, Sri Pranabandhu Acharya stated
that the PIO has responded correctly, as the information is voluminous in
nature. Sri Behera argued that in cases involving voluminous information, the
appellant should be given the opportunity for inspection. While rejecting the
RTI Application, the PIO, Office of the Superintendent, has taken the ground of
personal information, as the documents related to liquor licenses belong to the
license holders. He argued that he wanted documents on the basis of which the
license was issued. As a citizen, he has the right to know how the
Govt decided to issue a license. This information can be disclosed in the
public interest, even though it is personal. Sri Acharya continued
to act as the advocate of the PIO, despite the PIO maintaining silence. The
behaviour of Sri Acharya was erratic, irresponsible and useless. The tug of war
continued when the Commission took the position of the PIO, and the argument
and counterarguments continued, resulting in backlash. He further stated that
Sri Acharya is misusing his authority and is biased towards the PIOs, without
ensuring that information is provided to the citizens.
4.6 Large-scale complaint against Jagannath
Rath, the estranged Information Commissioner, alleged by the appellants
Sri Srikant Pakal, an RTI Activist, made a series of serious allegations against Sri Jagannath Rath, the SIC, describing him as the most useless Information Commissioner in the history of the Odisha Information Commission's functioning. He shared his personal experience with Sri Jagannath Rath during the hearing of the cases, including his ruthless behaviour and defaming the appellant and complainant during the hearing. He does not hear the cases properly, instead misbehaving with the appellants and discouraging them from filing RTI Applications. He advised the Respondent-PIOs not to supply the information. He also took false ground to reject appeals. Srikant Pakal cited Second Appeal No. 1531/2025, in which the Commission dismissed the case, stating that the appeal had some defects, but did not specify the details of the defects or how they would constitute grounds for rejection of the appeal.
4.7.
Plethora of Complaints submitted before Governor, Odisha, seeking inquiry
against the State Chief Information Commissioner and others.
The participants
highlighted and shared a series of complaints filed before the Hon’ble Governor
of Odisha, seeking action against the State Chief Information Commissioner and
State Information Commissioners for their unlawful activities and for disposing
of the cases without due application of mind.
5. Presentation by Jury Members and Recommendations
Sri Rabi Das,
Senior Journalist, Sri Satya Prakash Nayak, Journalist, Mrs. Anjali Bhardwaj
and Miss Amrita Johari from NCPRI, New Delhi, Azad Hind Panigrahi,
retired Law Officer, Govt. of Odisha, Sri Sibanand Roy, Senior
Advocate were present in the meeting as Jury members and shared their views/
opinion/ recommendation to Govt. after making patient hearing to the
presentation made by the people. All the Jury members thanked OSAA for organising
such a fantastic public hearing to debate and discuss various issued pertaining
to the functioning of Odisha Information Commission. The gist of the jury
members' recommendations is as follows.
A. It is good practice to monitor the functioning
of the Odisha Information Commission. As per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,
the Information Commission is a Public Authority and is duty-bound to supply
information to information seekers when RTI Applications are filed. In respect of
transparency, the office of the Information Commission should be a role model
for all public authorities. However, it has been alleged by many participants
that the Office of the Information Commission is refusing to supply information
to the Information Commissioner, which is a gross violation of the RTI Act. The
Jury members recommended that the State Chief Information Commissioner look
into the matter seriously and adhere to the objectives of the RTI Act. The
information that has been kept secret should be supplied at the earliest to
ensure transparency in the functioning of the Odisha Information Commission.
B. It was learnt that the Information
Commission has dismissed 800 complaint cases unilaterally without hearing. This
is not only a gross violation but also against the objective of the RTI Act.
This is also a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Jury
feels that the Information Commissioners appointed by the government are
ill-informed about the provisions of the RTI Act and the Odisha Information
Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2006. Therefore, it is recommended that
the Information Commission should hear all 800 Complaint cases that have been
arbitrarily dismissed and provide justice to the affected citizens.
C. The participants in the Public Hearing
highlighted that the office of the Information Commission has written a letter
to the appellants/complainants seeking their willingness whether they want a hearing
of their cases or not by 15th August, 25. If the appellants or
complainants do not respond, all 6000 pending cases will be dismissed. This
letter itself demonstrates the arbitrariness of the Commission and a blatant
violation of the RTI Act. The RTI Act does not empower the Information
Commission to write such of letter. As per sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act,
the Information Commission, upon receipt of a complaint or Second Appeal, will
hear and dispose of it in accordance with the law and ensure justice to citizens.
It is recommended that all 6000 cases should be heard and disposed of by the
Commission.
D. The decision/ order passed by the
Information Commissioners suffer from a lot of incongruities, grammatical errors,
lack of any analysis and interpretation of the law etc. The cases are disposed
of without ensuring the accuracy of the information. It shows that
the State Chief Information Commissioners and other Information Commissioners
lack a minimum understanding of the Act's provisions, and also do not possess
the necessary expertise and experience to hear cases. Many Information
Commissioners are not aware of the RTI Act. Therefore, it is recommended
that for the better functioning of the Commission, the State Government should
make a provision to sanction a special fund for sending them for training at a
reputed training institute to undertake training on RTI and Governance. Unless
their capacity-building is ensured, they cannot issue proper orders.
E. It has
been alleged that the Commission disposed of the SA and
Complaint cases just passing a speaking order directing the PIO to supply
information without fixing any deadline and not imposing a penalty on erring
PIO. The Commission is very hasty to close/dispose of the cases, hardly giving
any attention to whether information was supplied or not. Ultimately, the
Appellant/Complainants are not receiving information even after the cases have
been disposed of. The Office of the Commission does not concern itself with
whether a compliance Report was submitted by the Public Authority or not. Even
complaint cases filed regarding non-compliance with the Commission's order are
kept pending for an unknown period. If this practice continues, it will be a disaster
for all stakeholders. The PIOs will not care to supply information. The Public
Authorities will continue to ignore the Commission's orders. The Citizens will
be harassed and frustrated, and the office of the Commission will be redundant
by then. The dream of transparency through the RTI Act, envisioned by visionary
lawmakers, will be shattered. This practice needs to be stopped.
F. Many participants
demanded that the Commission should send their decisions in the Odia language
as they could not understand the English-written order. This is the
legitimate demand of the appellant or complainants. The Commission should
accept it and send its decision in the Odia language, on par with Odia
Asmita.
G. The cases which the Information
Commission has disposed of without ensuring the supply of information should be
challenged before the High Court, Orissa, by the aggrieved appellants.
Report prepared by Pradip Pradhan as per the decision of the Public
Hearing.
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener, Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
M-9937843482
Date- 1.9.25
Annexture-1
List of Participants who presented
case Studies in the Public
Hearing
|
Sl.No. |
Name |
District |
Mobile No. |
|
1 |
Amitav Chand |
Kendrapara |
9040144332
|
|
2 |
Subash Pradhan |
Balasore |
7992648160
|
|
3 |
Dusmant Acharya |
Kendrapara |
9777116876
|
|
4 |
Archer Ardhendu Behera |
Baragarh |
9348442906
|
|
5 |
Srikant Pakal |
Cuttack |
6370216463
|
|
6 |
Tanay Mohanty |
Balasore |
7751884678
|
|
7 |
Maheswar Mohanty |
Mayurbhanj |
7978967019
|
|
8 |
Pradip Pradhan |
Bhubaneswar |
9937843482
|
|
9 |
Sarbeswar Behura |
Jajpur |
9437459949
|
|
10 |
Pratap Mohanty |
Kendrapara |
9040222335
|
|
11 |
Bibhuti Roy |
Cuttack |
9861197679
|
|
12 |
Purna Nayak |
Puri |
9938129275
|
|
13 |
Sudhir Mohanty, Advocate |
Bhubaneswar |
9861063290
|
|
14 |
Sankarshan Pradhan |
Ganjam |
9777824305
|
|
15 |
Azad Hind Panigrahi,
Advocate |
Bhubaneswar |
9861168181
|
