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

dearfriend
we have already filed the PIL case in Orissa High Court. The case is going on.

Regards
Pradip Pradhan
On 8/10/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>