Tuesday, September 6, 2011

[HumJanenge] Resolution passed in 6th State Convention on RTI held in Orissa

Resolution passed in 6th Orissa State Convention on Right To Information held at Tirumala Tirupati Bhawan, Bhubaneswar on 28-30 August 2011 under the aegis of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan

The 6th Orissa State Convention on "Right To Information" was held at Tirumala Tirupati Bhawan, Bhubaneswar on 28th to 30th Aug'2011. The objective of the Convention was to promote and carry forward dialogue among different stakeholders like RTI Activists, Civil Society Organisations, Lawyers, Journalists,  bureaucrats, Panchayat Representatives and Academicians about the issues relating to implementation of RTI Act and functioning of Orissa Information Commission in the State and come out with appropriate recommendations for its effective implementation. More than 500 RTI Activists and RTI Users from 24 districts of Orissa including Koraput, Malkangiri, Rayagada, Nawarangpur, Sundargarh, Baragarh, Bhadrak, Dhenkanal, Bolangir, Sonepur and Kalahandi  had participated in the convention.  

Mr. Nageshwar Patnaik, Bureau Chief, The Economic Times presided over the meeting. On the first day, at the outset Mr. Pradip Pradhan, RTI Activist and Convener of the Convention declared that this Convention was dedicated  to the memory of RTI Martyrs  who have sacrificed their life for the cause of RTI and RTI Crusaders. While delivering the welcome and introductory note, Mr. Pradhan   gave a brief account of the RTI Campaign in the State right from 2005 till to-day. He also mentioned about series of awareness and training programmes for RTI activists undertaken so far along with publication of booklets. He highlighted the critical issues raised by RTI activists like Orissa RTI Rules 2005 being ultra vires the parent Act, mal-functioning of Orissa Information Commission, unholy alliance of the Commission with corrupt bureaucracy, inefficiency of the Commission to dispose the cases, series of complaints submitted to Governor against corrupt, inefficient and misbehaving Commissioners, and arbitrary and illegal collection of fees from BPL people by both Government and Commission etc.  He also informed the house about how the RTI Activists in Orissa have faced harassment and torture by the bureaucrats and police including beating and imprisonment. False cases have been lodged against them simply to dampen their spirit. Above all a damage/defamation case has been filed by the former State Chief Information Commissioner Sri D.N.Padhi against two RTI activists of the State to silence any criticism by them against Orissa Information Commission.

Then the meeting formally started after paying tribute to Sri Anna Hazare for his fight against corruption. Then the inaugural address was delivered by Justice Choudhury Pratap K. Mishra, former Judge, Orissa High Court.  Then the Convention was addressed by Mr. Shailesh Gandhi Central Information Commissioner. Sri Gandhi observed that huge pendency of the cases in the office of the Commission needs to be disposed on a war-footing basis in order to restore public confidence in RTI Act. Otherwise, RTI would be dead in the long run. Waging a scathing attack on faulty selection procedure followed in respect of appointment of Information Commissioners across the country, he said that a transparent procedure should be followed for the purpose. A Screening Committee should be put in place to select the candidates for the post of Information Commissioners. The details of the profile of candidates like academic qualification, professional background and past achievements of the shortlisted candidates should be put on the website for inviting public opinion on the candidates so shortlisted. The Govt. can also form a Search Committee prior to six months of the appointment of the Commissioners to pool together the probable names of competent candidates.  Speaking on RTI compliance by private bodies like Corporate Houses, he said that when the Govt. is working on PPP mode, there should be a Model Agreement containing a provision for mandatory compliance of RTI to be signed between Govt. and Private Companies. Regarding accountability of the Information Commissioners, he said that each Commissioner should be asked to dispose particular number of cases within a particular time frame. Low disposal of the cases has become a matter of great concern for the RTI Activists and the citizens.  Recently, the Central Information Commission has passed a directive to every Information Commissioners to dispose a minimum number of cases per month. On the question of staff crunch  affecting disposal  of the cases  in the state, Gandhi admitted that this is also a nagging  problem at the centre. He recalled a communication between him and PM Manmohan Singh seeking more staff.

Addressing the gathering, Prof. Surya Narayan Mishra, retired Prof. of Political Science, Utkal University, Vanivihar spoke about the role played by Civil Society Groups and RTI Activists in implementation of RTI Act in Orissa.

 Then Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information Commissioner in his address said that huge pendency of the cases has become a headache for him. He observed that he was trying hard to dispose the back-log of cases at the earliest. He sought the cooperation of RTI Activists and Civil Society Organisations for better functioning of the Information Commission in the state. He also said that the Commission had fixed first Monday of every month as a Grievance Day for hearing of the grievances of the people and RTI Activists in the state. About suo motu disclosures of information, he said that the Commission has issued several directions to the State Govt. to comply with Section 4(1b) of RTI Act.

 Addressing the Convention as Guest of Honour Mr. Gopal Nanda, former DG of Orissa Police said that the RTI Act and the proposed Jan Lokpal  Act are not enough to check corruption in the country. It requires public awareness to counter corruption. Around 1300 out of 2500 Acts are not being implemented in the country. Remaining 1200 Acts are not being properly implemented due to lack of awareness of the people. He gave a call to the youths to come forward to fight out the corruption pervading the whole country.  

 Other prominent figures from various walks of life   who spoke on RTI  and its implementation in the state and highlighted corruption and governance related issues  in course of the 3-day Convention were Advocates of Orissa High Court Mr. Asis Mishra and Mr. Khirod Rout, Development Journalists like Mr. Sai Prasanna, Mr. Sudarshan Chhotaray, Human Rights Activists like Mr. Dhirendra Panda, Mr. Manoj Jena, State Representative, People's Watch Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, senior  bureaucrats like Mr. Aurobindo Behera Principal Secretary, Dept. of Forest and Environment, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jena Dept. of Panchayat Raj, Political leaders like Mr. Jatish Mohanty President Samrudha Odisha, Mr. Panchanan Kanungo, former Finance Minister, Mr. Braja Kishor Tripathy, former Central Minister, Mr. Rama Ch. Panda, State Committee Member CPI,  well known Journalists like Mr. Rabi Dash, Mr. Kailash Mishra Editor The Amarikatha, Mr. Dillip Bisoi, Bureau Chief The Finance Express, Mr.Prafulla Das of The Hindu, Satya Prakash Nayak from The Kanak TV, Prominent Civil Society leaders like Er. Ajit Mohapatra, Sankar Parida, President, All Orissa Panchayat Parishad, and Durga Tripathy from Malkangiri.

 The Convention was coordinated by Members of OSAA Mrs. Usharani Behera, Mr. Tapan Mohapatra, Mr. Ashok Mallik, Mr. Arun Swain, Mr. Somanath Patnaik, Mr. Dillip Das, Mr. Ananta Rout, Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, Mr. Durga Prasad Tripathy, Mr. Gopal Mishra, Mr. Nakula Kumar Swain, Mr. Mahendra Padhi etc.

 Before the close of the Convention a Resolution was unanimously passed by the members present, which ran as follows:

 1.      Withdrawal of ultra vires provisions of Orissa RTI Rules, 2005

a.      Withdrawal of Application Form

Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, a citizen seeking information is not required to submit his/her   application to the Public Information Officer in any particular form. But Orissa RTI Rules has prescribed a compulsory 11-point lengthy and complex application Form, without proper fill-up of which one's request for information shall not be entertained. Moreover, the said Form requires an applicant to disclose several of his/her personal information like identity as a citizen, permanent address, and spouse name, which are as such prohibited from disclosure under Section 6(2) of the Act. The Central Govt. has not prescribed any Application Form as such, and some State Governments who have prescribed Forms have not made them compulsory.  The present Form-A of Orissa is simply a burdensome provision for the people of Orissa

So we recommend that  the Application Form i.e. Form-A imposed by Govt. of Orissa should therefore be withdrawn, and as in the case of Central Government, the citizens should be allowed to make an  application under the Act in the manner they like to.

 

 b.      Complete withdrawal of appeal Forms and fees                     

There is no  provision in RTI Act to prescribe any Form or  Fee for making an appeal, first or second. The Central Govt. and many other State Governments have therefore not prescribed any appeal form or fee. But the Govt. of Orissa, in clear violation of the Act has prescribed both appeal form (Form D for 1stAppeal and Form E for 2nd Appeal) and appeal fees (Rs.20/- for 1st appeal and Rs.25/- for 2nd appeal).  Besides the Orissa Rules make it compulsory for such  appeal fees to be deposited only through Court Fee Stamps, to procure which is a great difficulty for the common citizens. So  we demand to the State Government  abolish both appeal form and appeal fees so imposed.

 

 c.  Withdrawal of provision relating to Proof of Identity of Citizenship

The provision made under Sub-Rule 2 (e) on the "identity" of an applicant defined as "an evidence to show the citizenship like an electoral photo identity card/passport or any other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the person" is ultra vires the Section 6(2) of the RTI Act for the aforesaid reason and should therefore be struck off.

d.       Withdrawal of Form-B (letter of intimation)

The Form-B (letter of intimation) prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules 2005 is patently illegal too. As per Section 7(3) of RTI Act 2005, the letter of intimation from the PIO addressed to the applicant should contain (a) the calculation made to arrive the amount of fee demanded from the applicant towards cost of information, and (b) the information concerning the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit and procedure of appeal and any other form of access to the information requested, in case the applicant is aggrieved by the amount of fees charged or manner in which information has been provided. But the Form-B as prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules provides for no space for informing the applicant about such essential particulars. Rather it has been noticed that the PIOs taking advantage of such a deficient form, arbitrarily quote mythical amounts in a blanket manner (such as in thousands and lakhs of rupees) in Form-B simply to discourage the RTI applicants to pursue further the request for information made in the application. It is therefore demanded that the Form-B should be withdrawn and every PIO/APIO required to intimate the applicant all the particulars as mentioned in Section 7(3) of RTI Act.        

  1. Withdraw From-C (letter of rejection)

 The Form –C (Intimation of Rejection) as it stands now   is not only  prohibitive  of people's right to information, but  also  ultra vires  the mother law. It needs to be struck off. The section 7(1) of the RTI Act  says that a request for information can be rejected  for any of reasons  specified  in  Section 8 and 9 only. But the Form-C in its column  (i)  without specifying  the particular reasons  under the said sections, mentions  just in a blanket, roughshod manner  that it comes under exempted category covered under sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Similarly, the Column (iv)  spaciously  saying that "the information is contained  in published material available to the public  and quoting it  as  a ground for rejection  carries no meaning   for the  citizen  at all. Again, the column (vi)  saying " The information sought  for is prohibited  as per section  24(4)  of the Act is negatively slanted  against the citizen's quest for information, since the said section permits  the information relating to  cases of corruption  and human rights violation to be disclosed  albeit  after getting the approval  of the Information Commission. So instead of saying just "no", the said column might say, "Your application  has been forwarded  to the Information Commission  for their opinion ". The Column (vii)  saying  that " The information  would cause  unwarranted  invasion of privacy  of any person  is absolutely redundant , since the factor  is covered  under section 8(1j), already taken  care  of by the column (i) mentioned above. Thus  the Form-C is ultravires  the mother Act  for the reasons already shown above and needs to be withdrawn. 

 

2.      Enforcement of Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules, 2006

As per Rule -2 of Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules,2006, " Each Public Authority shall maintain a Register for day to day records  of the members of the public  who visit its office  in connection with accessing  or inspecting  suo moto information  proactively disclosed  by the said authority under section 4 of the RTI Act. This provision is neither enforced by State Govt. nor Orissa Information Commission in their direction to Govt. So we therefore recommend that  the said provision should be enforced.

 

3.      No Collection of fee for information from BPL People

 The RTI Act  in its section -7(5)  has categorically  said that  no fee shall be charged  from  the BPL persons  for application , cost of providing the information   and cost of print  or electronic  medium. But Orissa Rules  have allowed  the exemption  of application fee  only {vide Rule-4(1)} while depriving  the BPL families  of their lawful  right to avail the exemption  of other two fees . Since any state Rule  can not take  away  a people's right  which the Central Act  has provided , the Orissa Rules  as its stands  today  is not only  out and out ultravires  but also anti-poor. Therefore, we demand to the State Govt.  to issue strict instruction to all the public authorities not to collect fee  from the BPL people. 

4.      Enforcement of strict compliance of Section 4 of RTI Act by each Public Authority under appropriate Govt. and Competent authorities.

Under section 4(1a) of the RTI Act, each public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed and computerize it within a reasonable time and connect it through a network  all over the country on different systems. As per Section 4 (1b), each Public Authority  is required to voluntarily disclose 17 points of information   within 120 days of implementation of RTI Act i.e., 12th October,2005. Though more than 6 years have passed since implementation of the Act, more than 80% of the offices including the office of the Governor and Office of the Speaker have not disclosed such information. And moreover, the offices which have disclosed such information simply for name's sake, are not updating it from time to time.  We feel that this is a serious act of negligence and violation of RTI Act by the public authorities. We demand that Orissa Information Commission using its powers under Section 25(5) should censure the recalcitrant Public Authorities including the Offices of Governor and Speaker, for their failure to comply the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

 5.      Imposition of Penalty on Public Authorities for failure to comply Section 4 (1b) of the RTI Act

As it is seen  in our state that  though a good number cases of non-compliance  of section 4 (1b) of RTI Act  has been brought to the notice of Orissa Information Commission,  the Commission has neither heard the case nor imposed penalty on  defaulting authorities. Commission's ominous silence has  given free-hand not to get frightened of any penalty from the Commission. As we know, the Commission has not imposed any penalty  on any public authority   for non-compliance of section 4 of the Act. We therefore urge upon the Commission  to hear the violation of Section-4 related  cases and take punitive action against the defaulting authorities.  

6.      Disclosure of suo moto information in Oriya language

Under Section 4 (4) of the RTI Act, the voluntarily disclosed information should be published in local language and widely circulated through various means accessible to the public.  But we see in our state that all the information whatever has been proactively disclosed on the website is in English, which more than 90% of the people cannot read or understand. Moreover, the overwhelming bulk of people having no access to internet, the suo motu disclosures made in Oriya language should be made available in the office of each public authority in the shape of hard copy, for inspection and access by the common people. 

7.      Withdrawal of ultra vires provisions of Orissa High Court RTI Rules, 2005

Rule-4 (Fees)

Rule 4 (a)-  It says, 'A person desirous of an information authorised under the Act may apply for information to State Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer by filling an application with declaration on oath as indicated in the prescribed pro forma in Appendix-II or Appendix-II (A) as the case may be on payment of Rs.50 towards application fees in shape of non-judicial stamp'. The Appendix-II contains the application form in respect of Orissa High Court, and Appendix-II (A) contains application form in respect of Sub-ordinate Courts.

 Our recommendation as regards the application form is that the prescription of a compulsory application form and that too in English only is ultra vires Section 6(1) of parent Act, that allows the freedom to an applicant to write his application in his own manner and in any of the languages English, Hindi or official language of the area. The Forms already prescribed should therefore be declared as only Model Forms, not compulsory ones, allowing thereby the freedom to the applicant to write his application in his own manner and also in any of the above 3 languages. 

Our recommendation as regards the existing application fee i.e. Rs.50/- to be paid in the shape of non-judicial stamp is unreasonable in view of Section 7(5) of the Act that requires inter alia every fee to be 'reasonable'. It should be reduced to Rs.10/- only in conformity to the amount prescribed across the country by various authorities including Central Govt and Orissa State Government.

 Our recommendation as regards the existing single mode of payment of application fee i.e. through non-judicial stamp paper is that it is highly restrictive and should therefore be supplemented by such easier and popular modes of payment as Indian Postal Order, Money Order, Cheque/Draft and Treasury Challan. Moreover, our recommendation is that the Rule should provide for exemption of BPL families from paying any application fees as required under Section 7(5) of RTI Act.

 Rule 4 (d)-  

It says, 'The form of application for information shall be obtained from the office of the State Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be at the rate of Rs.10 per form. Each application form shall contain a serial number and signature of the issuing clerk with the date of issue and the seal of the State Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer as the case may be'.

 Our recommendation as regards Rule 4(d) is that the very provision for compelling an applicant to procure an application form issued with a unique serial number against it and that too at the cost of Rs.10/- is patently ultra vires the Section 6(1) of the Act already quoted above, and should therefore be abolished.

 Rule 4 (c)-  It says, 'The person applying for such information may obtain the copy thereof on further payment of Rs.20 in shape of non-judicial stamp for each sheet of paper comprising of 180 words or part thereof'.

 Our recommendation is that the prescribed fee of Rs.20/- per page is too unreasonable in view of the mandate given under Section 7(5) of RTI Act which, as already quoted above, says that each fee should be 'reasonable'. It is therefore required that the fee towards the cost of information per page should be reduced to Rs.2/- only and that too to fall in line with the overall fee regime prevalent in the country including that of the Central Govt and Orissa State Government. And further, the existing single mode of payment of information fee i.e. through non-judicial stamp paper is highly restrictive and should therefore be supplemented by such easier and popular modes of payment as Indian Postal Order, Money Order, Cheque/Draft and Treasury Challan. 

Moreover, the above Rule should provide for exemption of BPL families from paying any fees towards cost of information as required under Section 7(5) of RTI Act.

 Rule 4 (f)-  It says, 'The application form for information shall be issued and received during the office hours of the working days of State Public Information Officer or State AssistantPublic Information Officer as the case may be'.

 Our recommendation is that the very provision to compel an applicant to submit his application to the concerned PIO/APIO in person is highly restrictive and ultra vires the parent Act which allows the applicant to submit his application through post and even email in addition to submission in person. It is therefore required that the Rules should provide for submission of application for information through such additional means as post and email.    

 Rule 4 (h)- It says, 'If the required information or decision on the disposal of the application is not received within 3 months, the same will be destroyed and the applicant will have to apply afresh in accordance with the procedure'.

 Our recommendation is that the above provision is out and out ultra vires the parent Act. The very provision of allowing the discretion to the PIO for supplying or not supplying the information and that too within a spacious timeframe of 3 months is a naked contravention of the Section 7(1) of the parent Act, which categorically says, a PIO 'on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request'. It is therefore required that the Rule (h) should be abolished and be replaced by appropriate provision binding the PIO to provide or reject the application within the various time-limits prescribed under the Act.   

 8.      Arrangement for complying RTI by Security and Intelligence Agencies.

The Notification No.PC-106/2005-29086/IPR dated 29.10.2005, purportedly made under Section 24(4) of the Act is deficient on many counts. Additions as follows need therefore be made to the said notification to comply with the clear provisions made in the parent Act-  

The blanket expression found in the first sentence '. . . nothing contained in the said Act shall apply to the following organizations…" has ignored the requirements that are provided in the two provisos to the said Section 24(4), namely 'information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section', and 'in the case of information sought for in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request'. We recommend that the Notification should therefore provide for necessary arrangements to be put in place for disclosure in the prescribed manner of information relating to corruption or human rights violation by the concerned security and intelligence agencies. The Govt. should direct  the five security and  intelligence agencies notified so far   for appointment of PIOs and First Appellate Officers  so as to receive and dispose of applications and appeals respectively in respect of 'information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations' as required under first proviso to Section 24(4) of the Act.

 9.  Quick disposal of backlog cases by Orissa Information Commission

Large pendency of the cases in the office of the Information Commission has left the complainant-citizens frustrated and hopeless. The people using RTI are losing their faith on RTI. The long delay in hearing of the cases, fixation of so many dates for disposing the cases, and exonerating the defaulting PIOs from penalty have become a matter of concern for RTI users of the state.  In the Convention, Mr. Sailesh Gandhi, Central Information Commissioner shared that CIC has instructed each Information Commissioner to dispose at least 3000 cases per year. So we recommend that the Orissa Information Commission should fix accountability on the part of each Information Commissioner for disposing a certain number of cases to be disposed by him in a year.

 10.   Spread of misinformation by the Commission about RTI Act to be stopped forthwith -

As per the Section 26 of RTI Act the appropriate Government i.e. the Central Government and each State Government concerned should undertake awareness, training and publication activities around RTI Act. But ironically in our State, it is not the Government but the Information Commission arbitrarily carried out such activities by way of misappropriating the funds from the State exchequer to the tune of Rs.3 crore 25 lakh. As a result it was first of all noticed that the Commission neglected its main statutory duty of adjudicating the complaints and appeals leading to massive increase in the backlog of un-disposed cases. Secondly, the publications brought out by the Commission were so error-ridden that gross misinformation was spread among the public through the dissemination of such publications (For instance, mistranslation of Section 18 of RTI Act). Thirdly, the so-called awareness programmes orchestrated by the Commission on Orissa RTI Rules 2005 which is itself ultra vires the parent Act, resulted in the growing spread of confusion about the provisions of RTI Act; for instance, a section of people started wrongfully thinking as if the parent Act mandated a compulsory application form and disclosure of such personal details as voter's card as proof of citizenship, name of father/spouse and permanent address of the applicant.

Under the circumstances we demand, (1) to completely withdraw all the erratically authored publications of the Commission on RTI from circulation, (2) to keep at abeyance any awareness programme, be it by the Government or Commission, on so-called Orissa RTI Rules 2005 which is itself ultra vires and anti-people, and (3) to direct the State Government to undertake a correct translation of RTI Act 2005 into Oriya involving the very persons and groups who have pointed out the errors in the translation published by the Commission. 

11.  Decisions and Correspondences of OIC to be made in Oriya

In the Convention, all the Activists pointed out that as the correspondences relating to and decisions of the cases are written in English, the common people are not able to understand it.  The participants especially from Bolangir, Nuapara, Koraput and Rayagada shared that they always took the help of other educated persons to understand the content of the letters sent from the Commission's office. So, the participants demanded that all the decisions and correspondences from the Commission should be made in Oriya.   

12.   Commission to ensure Registration of the cases within 3 days

It is a common allegation that the complaint or appeal cases are not registered promptly in the office of the Commission as these should be. The Complainant or appellant remains in complete dark about whether their complaints have been received/ registered at all and if registered at all, what is their registration number. Taking advantage of this mess, the Information Commissioners have exercised their arbitrariness in picking up the cases of their choice to be taken up for hearing without bothering about who appealed when. With a view to remedy this illegal practice at the level of the Commission, we recommend the following- 

a.       Every Memorandum of Appeal should be registered within 3 days from the date of its receipt in the concerned register maintained for the purpose;

b.      The consecutive serial number assigned to a Memorandum of Appeal should be intimated to the concerned appellant within 7days of its registration.

c.       If a Memorandum of Appeal is not considered worth registering, then the reasons of its non-registration should be intimated to the appellant within 7days from the date of the receipt of said Memorandum.

d.      The Memoranda of Appeals so registered shall be taken up for hearing on 'first come first serve' basis, unless an Appeal is set aside for the purpose of enquiry under Section 18(2) of the Act.   

 13.  Enquiry into complaints against Information Commissioners by the Governor, Orissa

During last 5 years the Citizens have submitted a series of complaints to the Governor, Orissa under Section 17 of RTI Act against various Information Commissioners including Mr. D. N. Padhi, the former State Chief Information Commissioner on the grounds of corruption, inefficiency, misbehavior and moral turpitude etc demanding  necessary action against them as per law. However, till yet, not a single case of complaint has been properly and as per law enquired into by the Governor, Orissa, not to speak of any action contemplated under the Act. The RTI Activists have expressed their vehement displeasure over the unwarranted silence maintained by the Governor over the pending complaints. They have reiterated their demand before the Governor to undertake immediate enquiry by the Supreme Court into the pending complaints as per Section 17 of RTI Act.

 14.  Information Commission to ensure protection of RTI activists serving as Whistle blowers-

Several cases of violence and harassment (such as physical beating, false cases, jail etc.) meted out to the RTI users and activists by the officials having vested interests were brought to the notice of the Commission under Section 18 of RTI Act 2005. But the Commission has neither brought the perpetrators to justice, nor compensated the RTI users/activists so victimized. It is demanded that the Commission expeditiously decide such cases and mete out exemplary punishment in the shape of disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2) of RTI Act to the said perpetrators. 

15.  Video-conferencing facility to be used by Information Commission for quick disposal of cases-

As the Information Commissioners are fixing so many dates for hearing of the cases, it really becomes expensive for the complainant/appellant-citizens living in far-off places to visit time and again the hearing of the cases at capital. As we know, Central Information Commissioners are hearing the cases using the video and audio conferencing techniques. So we recommend that  the Orissa Information Commission should adopt the Video-conferencing techniques for hearing of the cases.

 16.      Withdrawal of Defamation Cases against RTI Activists by Orissa Information Commission

Defamation case filed by Orissa Information Commission led by Mr. D.N.Padhi, the then State Chief Information Commissioner against two RTI Activists of Orissa was discussed  in the convention. All the Activists have unanimously protested and condemned this move of the Commission  as a retrograde and ill motivated step  to frighten away the RTI Activists from raising any issues relating to functioning of OIC in the public domain. As per the Preamble to RTI Act 2005, the State and all its instrumentalities need to be held accountable to the governed. Thus the citizens have a right to ask questions relating to and critique the acts of omission and commission of any public authority including an Information Commission. So we demand that the Commission, in obeisance to the letter and spirit of RTI Act and as well the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Expression as enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution, should gracefully withdraw the above mentioned defamation  case filed against two RTI Activists and desist from taking any such move against any citizen in future.

Pradip Pradhan

On behalf of participants  of State  RTI  Convention

Date- 5.9.2011

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.