Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat
Section 17 of J&K RTI Act 2009 and Section 20 (1) of Central RTI Act 2005 discusses about penalizing Government officers who are designated as Public Information Officers (PIO) in various Public Authorities which include Government Departments , semi Government organization , Public Sector Undertakings (PSU’s) etc . A PIO who intentionally violates the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI) by denying information to an RTI applicant is bound to get penalized and the penalty money is to be recovered from the said PIO by deducting the amount (as decided by State / Central – Information Commission) from his salary.
Section 17 of J&K RTI Act 2009 reads as : “Where the State Information Commission at the time of deciding a complaint, appeal or reference is of the opinion that the Public Information Officer has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section l of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect or incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees (Rs 250) each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however , the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand (Rs 25,000) . Provided that the Public Information Officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him.
It has been observed that in many cases the information is usually under the control of senior officer or head of the department (HOD) of a public authority and the thus the PIO fails to provide the same to an information seeker. In such circumstances the axe falls on PIO who sometimes gets penalized as well. In some cases the information which is being asked under RTI Act can expose the corrupt practice of a senior official of a public authority or even its HOD or a Minister, MP or an MLA of area , under these circumstances , the PIO provides incomplete or misleading information to the applicant just to save his skin. When the applicant files a complaint or second appeal before the Information Commission (State / Central) the poor PIO ultimately becomes the direct target of the Information Commission.
It is not the fault of Information Commission who penalize the PIO’s , but the fault lies within the RTI law itself. Central RTI Act / J&K RTI Act 2009 only discuss about penalizing a Public Information Officer (PIO) , but it is mum over levying penalty against the First Appellate Authority (FAA) ( officer senior to PIO). For example if an information seeker files an application under RTI application before the Assistant Commissioner Revenue who is also designated PIO in the office of Deputy Commissioner. If the PIO under some pressure from MLA, senior officers , Minister etc is not able to provide the reply on time or the reply happens to be incomplete or misleading , the RTI applicant under section 16 will move 1st appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) ie Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner concerned whosoever is the FAA. The FAA has to decide the 1st appeal within 30 to 45 days and when the justice is not done and the information isn’t provided to information seeker even after filing 1st appeal , the PIO (ACR) is summoned to the State Information Commission (SIC). The ACR has to face the wrath of the Commission which includes levying of penalty against him , while as RTI Act gives immunity to the Deputy Commissioner the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
RTI Act is silent about penalizing the senior officers such as First Appellate Authorities (FAA) ie Deputy Commissioners , Directors etc. Some important amendments need to be made in RTI Act which includes incorporating a provision of penalty for First Appellate Authorities (FAA) as well. In addition to it all the HOD’s should be designated as PIO’s so that they adjudicate the 1st appeal cases themselves with keen interest. It has been observed that many HOD’s are asking their junior officers to function as FAA and RTI law is again silent on this issue . It is not necessary that PIO’s are always victimized or they seem to be helpless under some pressure from their HOD . In majority of the cases which land in CIC or SIC , the PIO’s are at fault due to their inefficiency and lack of knowledge about RTI Act , but in some cases their case is genuine as they have to work under tremendous pulls and pressures.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel