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
No comments:
Post a Comment