Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Apr 22: Though State High Court is supposed to deliver justice in the Right to Information (RTI) cases, it has not yet framed rules of this transparency law despite repeated concerns and communications of the State Information Commission (SIC) in this regard. Due to this, the applications of information seekers are remaining un-disposed for quite long time and issue of multiple applications remaining unaddressed.
The issue vis-à-vis framing of rules has once again hogged the limelight in an appeal before the State Information Commission, which while disposing of the same, has hoped that High Court would wake up to the situation and frame the rules on the analogy of High Courts of other States in the country.
Under Section 2(b) of Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009, Chief Justice of the State High Court has been declared as competent authority and Section 25 states that competent authority may, by a proper notification, make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act without prejudice to the generality of the principal legislation.
These rules can cover the matters like the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under Sub-Section 4 of Section 4; the fee payable under Sub-Section (1) of Section 6; the fee payable under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 and any other matter, which is required to be or may be prescribed.
Though various High Courts in the country have framed such rules, the J&K High Court has yet not paid any serious attention towards the same despite the fact that State Information Commission had number of times briefed the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of High Court about their mandate under the RTI Act.
Due to non-framing of rules, even the PIOs of the High Court are finding it difficult to deliver justice to the Right to Information cases. Moreover, they are groping in dark about how to handle multiple applications.
The issue of non-framing of rules by the High Court for enforcing RTI Act once again became an issue to be deliberated upon when a second appeal was filed before the State Information Commission by one Jagdev Singh against Registrar General-cum-First Appellate Authority of J&K High Court and Registrar Judicial-cum-PIO, Srinagar wing.
The appellant had filed an RTI application before the PIO High Court seeking details of vacancies of the posts in both the wings of the High Court, which are to be filled by promotion within the existing incumbents, steps taken to fill the vacancies and whether existing incumbents are overburdened of the work of such vacant posts.
Appellant in his second appeal stated that neither RTI request was responded to by the PIO nor FAA adjudicated his first appeal.
After hearing the PIO and considering his detailed written submission, the Chief Information Commissioner, G R Sufi, has observed, “PIO, who was not in possession of information sought by the applicant, requisitioned the same from the Registrar General but it seems that he has not invoked the provisions contained under Section 5(4) and 5(5)”.
Observing that Registrar General had returned the RTI application with the remarks that it was not legible as such doesn’t warrant any action, the Commission said, “the issue of illegible RTI application and other related matter could have been regularized had the rules been made”, adding “further PIO is under obligation under Section 6(1) of the Act to render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing”.
If the PIO finds that the RTI applications were not strictly in accordance with such rules, he could have taken the decision accordingly at such type of application, the Commission further said. “We have been informed from time to time by the earlier PIOs that certain persons are resorting to multiple applications and this could also have been covered in these rules”, the SIC said, adding “we have found that there are number of such first appeals, which have remained un-disposed. Similarly, if Section 5(4) would have been implemented, the receipt of RTI applications by the PIO of the High Court could have been minimized”.
Stating that Commission is bound by the guidance of the Supreme Court and other High Courts of the country where it has been held that “underlying principal of the RTI Act is that disclosure of information is a general rule and exemption is exception”, SIC directed the PIO of the High Court to decide the application of the information seeker by passing an order under Section 7 of the J&K RTI Act, 2009 within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
Meanwhile, Aijaz Ahmad Mir, the then Registrar Judicial-cum-PIO, High Court, who had received the RTI application in appeal was directed to explain why action under Section 17 of the Act may not be initiated against him.
Follow our WhatsApp channel