Re: [HumJanenge] Why the series of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section 4 of RTI Act have been doomed to a fiasco

Dear Pradip Ji,
instead of writing about the failure of the state government, the
proper course is the filing of petition in the high court for
implementation of section 4.
regards
sandeep

On 8/10/11, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Why the series of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section 4
> of RTI Act have been doomed to a fiasco *
>
>
>
> Dear friends,
>
> In his latest circular letter [No. RTI-52/11 8302 / CS(1&PR) dated
> 11.7.2011], the Chief Secretary of Orissa has issued another instruction to
> all the Public Authorities of the State to comply with mandatory provisions
> under Section 4 (1) (a),( b), (c),( d), and Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) of
> RTI Act forthwith. It is worthwhile to recall that way back on 9.1.2009 Mr.
> A.K.Tripathy then Chief Secretary Orissa had also issued a similar circular
> emphasizing strict compliance with Section 4 of the Act. Again, in a state
> level review meeting convened by Chief Secretary, Orissa on 15.5.2011, all
> the Public authorities were instructed to ensure proactive disclosures under
> Section 4 of RTI Act. In the meeting it was also decided that stern action
> would be taken against the erring Public Authorities who would fail to
> comply with the instruction. Further, it is interesting to note that when
> the RTI Act 2005 was newly notified but not yet fully enforced, the Chief
> Secretary Orissa had held a meeting of Secretaries of important Departments
> of the Government on 22.08.2005 to chalk out a plan of action for
> implementation of various provisions of Act , where also the following
> decision was adopted in respect of implementation of Section 4 of the
> Act-"*3. Proactive
> disclosure: *According to the provision of Section 4 of the R.T.I. Act,
> every Public Authority is required to disclose information voluntarily in 17
> points by 12.10.2005. Steps should be taken to go for voluntary disclosure
> of information to the maximum extent so that the strength of application
> seeking information will be substantially reduced". (vide Para-3 of the
> Proceedings at http://203.193.146.66/ipr/Corecom.asp?lnk=11). After a few
> months the Chief Secretary issued also an Operational Guidelines dated
> 28.10.2005 for implementation of RTI Act in the State, wherein the Para-16
> read, "Top priority should be given for suo-motu dissemination of maximum
> information in order to reduce the number of information seekers" (
> http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/guidelines.pdf). But going by the admission
> made in the Chief Secretary's latest circular, the above deadline is long
> past by more than five and half years, reducing the whole business of
> issuing circular after circular to a big joke only.
>
> After long 6 years of enactment of RTI Act 2005, it hardly needs to be
> mentioned that Section 4 is virtually the heart and soul of the Act, though
> neglected by every public authority including the office of Chief Secretary
> itself. As is well known, the Section requires each Public Authority to make
> proactive disclosure of information about 17 subjects within 120 days of
> enactment of the Act i.e., 12th October 2005. The said bunch of information
> was required to be disclosed in local language and widely disseminated
> through notice board, newspapers and electronic media including internet
> etc. and to be made available to the citizens instantly free of cost or on
> payment of xerox cost only. Both head and PIO of every public authority were
> accountable to provide instant access to the related information to the
> desirous citizens who unlike in case of Section-6 were not required to
> submit any application for the purpose.
>
> Now the question arises, why such a big failure on the part of the State
> Government in ensuring the compliance to Section 4 by public authorities
> from top to bottom? And, how many circulars require to be issued by the
> Chief Secretary Orissa in years to come for ensuring the necessary
> compliance?
>
> If we delve deep into the reasons for the above kind of failure, it would be
> noticed that non-observance, nay, gross neglect by all the public
> authorities in respect of the Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 (
> http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/amendment%20to%20ORTI%20Rules,2005.pdf) is the
> major one. Such Rules which is in place only in the State of Orissa provides
> inter alia for maintenance of a Register in the office of every public
> authority for recording the particulars of every person who would visit it
> for seeking information/ inspection of proactively disclosed information
> under Section-4 of the Act. Such a register, if maintained properly, shall
> not only store a proof of the concerned visitor but also serve as an
> incentive to him to visit the office of the public authority more and more.
> Mainly because, through this route he/she can instantly access a lot of
> information about his village, community and such public matters without
> having to submit a written application along with application fees, wait for
> 30 days to receive the requested information and also pay Rs.2/- per page
> towards the cost of information. But, strangely enough, none of the
> circulars of Chief Secretary has ever instructed the public authorities to
> comply with the above mentioned State Rule for maintenance of a separate
> register in their office for the purpose of Section-4.
>
> The next major reason for non-compliance to Section 4 in Orissa is a series
> of queer orders issued by the former Chief Orissa Information Commissioner
> Mr.D.N.Padhi on 20.06.2006 wherein he gave a clear signal to the public
> authorities of the State that nothing would happen against them on account
> of their non-compliance to the provisions of Section-4. In those orders he
> even went further to state, "As the complaint petition does not come within
> purview of Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005, the same is
> rejected" (For instance, vide Complaint Case No.3/2006). While such an order
> was patently ultra vires the parent Act, it served as the greatest nuisance
> against RTI Act in Orissa by way of emboldening the public authorities and
> PIOs to go on a violation spree against Section 4 with impunity. Till date
> Orissa Information Commission has been working in a Section-4 phobia mode,
> no matter Mr.D.N.Padhi has been meanwhile replaced by Mr.T.K.Mishra in the
> capacity of Chief Orissa Information Commissioner. What can be a better
> proof of Commission's cultivated lenience towards Section-4 baiters than the
> glaring fact that not a single violator of Section 4 has been punished or
> censured by the Commission during all these 5 years?
>
> Given an all-failure of both Government and Information Commission in
> respect of Section 4, the RTI users of Orissa heaved a sigh of relief when
> Orissa High Court on admitting a PIL filed by Mr. Sanjeeb Satpathy an RTI
> activist associated with Antodaya, Kalahandi issued notice to both State
> Govt. and Orissa Information Commission to file their respective response as
> to why have failed to ensure compliance to Section-4 thus far. It seems the
> Chief Secretary has been awakened by this notice of High Court to show some
> activity or the other on the front of Section-4, even if for purely cosmetic
> purposes.
>
> Be that as it may, if the two major pillars of RTI regime of the State i.e.
> Government and Information Commission really mean business for compliance to
> Section-4, they should adopt the following 3 measures-
>
> - Instruction by the Chief Secretary to each and every public
> authority of the State to maintain a Register for recording the particulars
> of the visitors seeking information under Section-4 as required under Orissa
> RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006;
>
> - Orissa Information Commission to review its decisions whereby it
> exempted the complaints against violation of Section-4 from the purview of
> adjudication by the Commission; and OSIC to award severe penalty against the
> violators of Section 4, which would serve as exemplary to the rest of
> violators among PIOs and public authorities; and
>
> - The Office of Chief Secretary and the Office of Secretary to I&PR
> Dept, the nodal RTI agency of the State should show the model in compliance
> to Section-4 by way of maintaining the concerned Register for visitors under
> Section-4 and making necessary logistic arrangement for allowing the members
> of public wishing inspection of and access to documents falling under
> proactive disclosures of RTI Act.
>
> *Pradip Pradhan*
>
> *M-99378-43482 *
>
> *Date- 10.9.2011 *
>

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181