Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, when the word
"information' stated in Section 7(9) amplified with its defenition in
2(f) coupled with the waves created by my friend Palat Mohandas, SIC,
Kerala my confusion is confounded. The key words in this case are "
Under the control of the public authority"
Certain portions of the Kerala Legislative Assembly Proceedings are
videographed in addition to the official script. The Speaker of the
House says that this is done through private agency and the KLA does
not exercise any control over the video recording. The recorded tapes
being under the control of the videographer he could edit those tapes
the way he wish, lack authenticity and the KLA has no control over
these tapes. Literaly, the video tapea exist; but is NOT UNDER THE
CONTROL of the KLA. To me, if we go by Section 2(f) the information
contained in the vieo tapes in the above circumstances does not fall
under 'right to information'
When an applicant ask for copy of the above video tapes, the PIO
cannot provide it on a plea that those tapes are not under the control
of the PA. If the PA want to give copy of those tapes the PA has to
authenticate it by reconciling it with the formal information of the
proceedings held with the PA in the printed form. This would of cource
l disproportionately divert the resources of the PA. My doubt ub rgua
case is whether the PIO can fulfil his legal obligation of providing
the information under his control by providing the printed form
instead of the video tapes.
No comments:
Post a Comment