RTI rule amendment under scrutiny

By SNV Sudhir

Visakhapatnam, Jan 21: A Government Order (GO) issued recently amending rules of State Information Commission (SIC) and procedure to deal with dispose of the appeals has come under attack by RTI activists.

As per the G O MS no 20 of the General Administration Department (GAD) issued on Jan 10, 2013, government decided to delete sub-rule (IV) of Rule 5 of GO Ms No. 66 dated Feb 25, 2006 issued by the same department on the procedure to be followed by the SIC.

The latest G O exempts the Public Information Officers (PIO) or Assistant Public Information Officers (APIO) appearing before the SIC while deciding appeal. RTI activists are of the view that the G O would preempt the authority of the SIC which should be free to summon the officers designated as PIOs/ APIOs to tender evidence and render help to the Commission.

The sub rule IV of rule 5 of the earlier G O NO 66 of 2006 says that ‘in deciding the appeal the Commission may- hear State  Public Information Officer, State Assistant Public Information Officer or such Senior Officer who decide the first appeal, or such person against whom the complaint is made, as the case may be’

The latest GO says that ‘In rule 5 of the said rules sub rule (IV) shall be omitted and sub rules (V) and (VI) shall be re-numbered as sub rules (IV) and (V) respectively’.   

“The amendment also preempts the authority of the SIC to summon the other officials of the government for evidence and, as such, it tends to vitiate the quasi-judicial process involved in the proceedings before the SIC. It runs counter to the public interest,” said retired senior bureaucrat and a known RTI activist, EAS Sarma.

He further said that the SIC may have to impose penalties on the PIOs/ APIOs and appellate authorities for failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act. In such a case, unless the concerned officers are present before the SIC and put forward their respective arguments, any unilateral action on the part of the SIC may amount to violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be set aside by the courts.

“The amendment gives one the impression that the officers of the State government, especially the senior officials assume that they are above the RTI Act and are contemptuous of its reach and ambit. This is highly objectionable. In a way, it indicates the scant respect in which the officials hold the Act in general and the SIC in particular,” added Sarma.