Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Apr 2: “Old habits die hard”-are the remarks of Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission to describe the response it has received from several Government departments and organizations regarding the strict implementation of the Right to Information Act and upholding the principle of accountability at every level of hierarchy.
These remarks have been made in SIC’s annual report for 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 years tabled by Minister for Finance, Abdul Rahim Rather on behalf of Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah in the Legislative Assembly today.
Despite repeated and numerous communications of the Information Commission to the State Government the First Appellate Authorities have remained insensitive towards discharging the statutory duties cast upon them as per the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, the report said.
“The compliance at the level of First Appellate Authorities is still wanting and most of the FAAs are not yet sensitive towards discharging the statutory duties cast upon them to adjudicate First Appeals”, the Commission has observed with concern, adding “if the compliance level of FAAs increases the intervention of the Commission will diminish and help the administration to concentrate on their duties”.
As the aim and objective of the RTI Act is to ensure accountability and transparency in the working of the public authorities and the provisions of the Act entail personal and individual liability, the Commission invited the attention of the Government towards the fact that the functionaries in the public authorities more often than not ignore authenticating their signatures by not mentioning their names in the official correspondence.
Although repeated instructions were issued by the Government stipulating that these instructions would suo-moto apply to all correspondence made in the RTI matters, the public authorities have not mend their ways, the report said and termed this attitude as “old habits die hard”. “Serious efforts need to be made to secure compliance to the Government instructions in order to uphold the principle of accountability at every level of hierarchy”, the Commission said in the report.
Pointing towards Section 22 of the Act which provides that each department should collect and provide information to the Commission about the number of requests made to each public authority, the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to the documents, number of appeals referred to Commission for review and particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer, the report said, “the process of submission of quarterly/annual returns by the public authorities/line departments to their respective administrative departments and thereafter by the administrative department to the Commission has not fully been put in place which in a way has hampered preparation of annual report by the Commission”.
“While some departments—Finance, CAPD, Housing and Urban Development, Social Welfare, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, GAD, Agriculture and Cooperative have adopted the practice of sending the returns in the desired manner the majority of the departments are yet to show a similar response”, the report said.
About the compliance of the provisions of Section 4(1)(b), which makes it mandatory for all the departments and organizations to launch websites and host desired information for the information of the general public, the report said, “though the steps taken by the General Administration Department have in some measure helped emphasis upon the public authorities the importance of meeting the statutory obligations of this Section, which is very soul of transparency law and promoting suo-moto disclosure of information by the public authorities, majority of the departments/organizations are yet to launch websites and host desired information”.
According to the report, against total of 36 administrative departments, 26 have opened websites while as against 211 subordinate departments/HODs only 88 have opened website.
During the year 2009-10, a total of 741 RTI requests were received by public authorities while as this figure increased to 3110 in 2010-11 and 12136 in 2011-12. The percentage of rejection of requests under different provisions of the Act was 9% in 2009-10, 4% in 2010-11 and 1.37% in 2011-12.
The Commission received 13 complaints/2nd appeals in 2009-10, 24 in 2010-11 and 974 in 2011-12. During 2010-11 the Commission decided three complaints/2nd appeals while as in 2011-12 a total of 589 complaints and appeals were decided.
The Commission invoked punitive provisions of law as contained in Section 17 of the Act in a number of cases to uphold the Right to Information and ensure implementation of the Act in letter and spirit by taking some coercive steps in extreme default cases.
“Till March 2012 penalty was imposed in five cases by varying amounts”, the report said, adding “four of the affected officers have filed review petitions with one of them also filed a writ petition in the High Court against penalty order which is sub-judice”.
The Commission has recommended that as a part of administrative reforms, the State Government must consider initiating the process of computerization in all its institutions and take appropriate practicable measures to accelerate the process of computerized management information systems by all public authorities in the State.
It has further suggested that every Administrative Department should collect at its own level quarterly/annual return (progress report) in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction and furnish the same in a consolidated form to the Commission at the end of each quarter/ each financial year.
“The State Government must tap all forms of mass media for undertaking an extensive public awareness programme to educate the people about their right to information”, the report said, adding “instructions must be passed to all District Development Commissioners to supervise/monitor the implementation of Act within their respective districts”.
“The officers of all public authorities should display a standard board containing essential information about them under RTI Act in such areas where internet facilities are not available and a comprehensive list of public authorities as defined in Section 2(f) falling under different administrative departments be put on internet and made available in print form”, the Commission further suggested, adding “every Administrative Secretary should be made responsible for assuring pro-active disclosure by a public authority within their purview”.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel