Departmental Enquiry under Section 20 of RTI Act
- Part 1 -

A. Romen Kumar Singh *

"Where is the LIFE we have lost in living?
Where is the WISDOM we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the KNOWLEDGE we have lost in information? "
-T.S. ELIOT

"WHERE is the INFORMATION we have lost in suppression?"
Added by Krishna Iyer

Popular ignorance, which is the enemy of any intelligent decision, deadens democracy and so it is that no REPUBLIC can last if the public is kept in the dark about the processes, policies and performance of Government and public bodies.

No progress can be registered in politics and social change if the citizenry is left unlettered and the sources of light sealed.

Information is the source of knowledge and knowledge with intelligent judgement playing on it, the foundation of opinion on issues and policies in democracy.

2. The collective will of the community formed on facts dessiminated by the media or secured otherwise shapes the course of State action. What applies to political processes applies to professional functioning and other aspects of life. No lawyer can argue without facts, no doctor nor engineer without awareness of the latest advances, nor can a General win a war if all the information about the enemy be not in his possession.

3. Life, in our complex societies, cannot be guided by sound judgement in the absence of wisdom fed by and founded on truthful and telling facts. Education of the mind is the sine qua non of informed decision on any problem. Even inspiration and flashness of genius spring from intelligent observation, calm reflection or instant revelation.

The march of humanity in modern societies, the social locomotion of the masses in complex communities, and the leaps of science and technology in a world given to quantum jump of consciousness cannot be by sheer accident but must be by the illumination of information. So it is that the Universal Vedic invocation is valid everywhere.

IN DEMOCRACY, NO GOVERNMENT CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY.

Justice PN Bhagawati in a Constitution Bench judgement as reported in SP Gupta V Union Of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87 at Para 137 last part held as below:-

"In a democracy citizens ought to know what their Government is doing. No democratic Government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning of the Government.

It is only if people know how Government is functioning that they can fulfil the role which democracy assigns to them and make democracy a really effective participatory democracy.

There can be little doubt that exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the sures means of achieving a clean and healthy administration"

Justice Krishna Iyer in his book "Freedom of Information" on page XV observed that the right to express one's thoughts is meaningless if it is not accompanied by a related right to secure all information on matters of public concern from relevant public authorities.

However, to ensure that there is no misinterpretation, there may be no harm in inserting of information as a specifically corollary to Article 19 of the Indian Consti- tution.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

The judgement of the Apex court (Supra) had weighed with the Central Government to enact the "RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 to make the Government more transparent and accountable to the public.

SUPREME COURT ON THE OBJECTS AND REASONS OF THE ACT :

In a case as reported in Namit Sharma V. Union of India, 2012 (8) Scale 593 the Supreme Court at Para 27 held as under:

27- In terms of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Act, 2005, it was stated that this law was enacted in order to make the Government more transparent and accountable to the public.

It was felt that in the present democratic framework, free flow of information for citizens and non-Government institutions suffers from several bottlenecks including the existing legal framework, lack of infra structure at the grass root level and an attitude of secrecy within the Civil Services as a result of the old framework of rules.

The Act was to deal with all such aspects. The purpose and object was to make the Government more transparent and accountable to the public and to provide freedom to every citizen to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, consistent with the public interest, in order to promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected therewith or incidental thereto"

RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS PROTECTED

The Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission V. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwl, 2012 (12) SCALE 525 at Page 530 Para 11 held that the scheme of this Act contemplates for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.

It was aimed at providing free access to information with the object of making governance more transparent and accountable.

Another right of a citizen protected under the Constitution is the right to privacy. This right is enshrined within the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the right to information has to be balanced with the right to privacy within the framework of law.

PUBLIC AUTHORITY- COLLEGE NEITHER CONTROLLED NOR FINANCED BY STATE IS NOT PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE

The term "public authority" has been interpreted by the Gauhati High Court in a case as reported in Raidlaban College Society Vs. State of Meghalaya, 2011 (2) GLT 896 and held that the petitioner college neither controlled nor substantially financed by the State Respondent to bring it within the term "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) (i) of the RTI Act and as such RTI Act is not applicable to private college.

AS AN EXCEPTION TO EXEMPTION - THE INFORMATION COMMISSION MAY DIRECT PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION IN LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST

The Supreme Court in the case (supra) at Para 12 observed that where Section 3 of the Act grants to citizen to have access to information, there Section 4 places an obligation upon the public authorities to maintain records and provide the prescribed information.

Once an application seeking information is made, the same has to be dealt with as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The request for information is to be disposed off within the time postulated under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act.

Section 8 is one of the most important provisions of the Act as it is an exception to the general rule of obligation to furnish information.

It gives the category of cases where the public authority is exempted from providing the information. To such exemptions, there are inbuilt exceptions under some of the provisions, where despite exceptions, the commission may call upon the authority, to furnish the information in the larger public interest. This shows the wide scope of these provisions as intended by the framers of law. In such cases, the Information Commission has to apply its mind whether it is a case of exemption within the provisions of said Section.

PERSONAL INFORMATION IS EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 8(1)(j) OF THE RTI ACT

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande V. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1SCC 212.

In this case, the petitioner seeking copies of memos, showcause notices and censure/punishment awarded to Government officer from his employer, details of movable and immovable properties, his investments, loans and borrowing from banks and other financial institutions and gifts stated to have been accepted by him, his family members and relatives or friends at his son's marriage. Information sought for, mostly found place in the Government officer's income tax returns.

The Supreme Court held that such information constituted personal information and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) and the petitioner fails to show that public interest justified disclosure of such information.

The Supreme Court further held on page No. 217 Para No. 12 that the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.

Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

To be continued....