No wonder, the public information officers are emboldened to be stingy with information, asked for under the Right to Information (RTI) Act
No wonder, the public information officers are emboldened to be stingy with information, asked for under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In spite of RTI being clear on the subject, the state information commissioner for Mumbai, Ramanand Tiwari, has cumulatively fined Rs5,000 on public information officers for violating RTI.
He has fined only three officers hitherto, from the time he took over as SIC, Mumbai, on March 1, 2008, till September 30, 2008 (seven months).
It is what activists call the ‘proof of grouse’ they hold against the state information commissioner, for making the Act almost redundant.
As per the Act, the period for fining a public information officer (PIO) begins 30 days after the initial time given to him to provide information. If he cannot provide information, he should be fined Rs250 a day, with a maximum punishment of Rs25,000.
However, as per an RTI finding, of the 950 second appeals and 70 complaints received by the Mumbai commissioner, only three officers were found guilty of violating the Act and penalised; the SIC disposed of 809 appeals and 37 complaints.
This lax attitude, activist say, is making the PIOs take the Act lightly. Said Pramod Kadam, the RTI applicant, “I was tired of not getting a reply for 13 months from the PIO, even after the first appellant ordered that I get it in 10 days.” After the second appeal, too, the PIO was not fined. “That is what prompted me to check if they are fining people or not.”
“If Shailesh Gandhi could penalise 80 PIOs in 12 days of joining, what stops them now? If I go only as per my appeal, the fine amount is Rs25,000.” And it’s not the delay in getting the hearing they are talking about. According to Suresh Joshi, pending second appeals have reduced by four or five months.
Said Mukund Parekh, an RTI activist, “Before the appeal comes up for second hearing, over 100 days of delay has already happened. In most cases, there should have been a maximum penalty of Rs25,000.”
Parekh said the seriousness of the information commission could be gauged when looking at the inward register (complaints received record) put up on the website. “That is supposed to be updated daily, as part of their transparency,” said Parekh. However, an RTI reply showed that the site was last updated on May 30, 2007. When contacted, Tiwari said, “I have no comment on this issue.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}