What ails the beauracracy

-What is ailing the beauracracy?

Today is the anniversary of the passing of the Right to information Act by Government of India. The act is hailed as the tool to ensure transperancy, accountability in the administration and a means to access information. But, in practice, is this happening? Here is a review and self assessment of the working of the Goa state information Commission. We would like the citizens to do similar exercise in respect of the other agencies like the Government, the public authorities, local authorities.



Review of the work done by the Goa State Information Commission.
(11th October, 2006)

Today, one year is completed after the Right to Information Act, 2005 has come into force. It is, therefore, proper to review the implementation of the RTI Act in Goa. The Goa State Information Commission was constituted on 2/3/2006, and was provided an office with a skeleton staff of one undere secretary and 4 trainees from 8/6/2006. Since then, the Commission has received and disposed off the complaints and second appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005) as follows: -

Upto June 2006
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Total

Complaints






Filed 12
17
01
06
-
36

Disposed 10
11
-
-
-
21

Bal 02
6
01
06
-
15

Appeals






Filed 09
11
06
05
01
32

Disposed 07
6
04
-
-
17

Bal 02
5
02
05
01
15

Total






Filed 21
28
07
11
01
68

Disposed 17
17
04
-
-
38

Bal 04
11
03
11
01
30





From the table, it can be seen that only 4 cases are more than 3 months old. The commission could have reduced this delay if proper staff and funds are provided to it. Even if the existing circumstances continue, we re-dedicate ourselves to reduce delay.


2. Show cause notice issued for penalty: -

Of all the cases brought before the Commission, the Commission has formed an opinion of prime facie delay/malafide denial of information in _4___ cases for which show cases notices were issued in imposing the penalty. Of thes e one case is dropped by the Commission and one is pending as the party has approach the High Court. So the remaining 2 cases are under disposal.

3. Procedure adopted by the Commission: -

In all the cases, both the complainants/appellants and the Public Authorities are given adequate opportunities and only after hearing, orders are passed. All the cases are heard and decided by the bench consisting of CIC and SIC. No cases are heard or disposed off either by a single member or by the officials of the Commission. All the cases are disposed off in favour of citizens. Only when the information was supplied by the PIO’s during the course of the appeal or when the first appeal provision is not exhausted did the Commission reject the appeal/ complaint. Almost all the orders of the Commission are obeyed by the Public Authorities except in one case, which is before the High Court.

4. The difficulties in the implementation of the RTI Act: -

This is not to say that the RTI Act is being implemented very effectively in Goa. The low filing of second appeals before the Commission may not be entirely because the information is being supplied at all levels by the Public Authorities but because of the recourse taken under the Act by few people. But, by and large the Commission is of the opinion that most of the Government Departments have fallen in line with the new norms of disclosure of information rather than holding it back. Nevertheless, the training to the officials and publicity of the benefits of the Act has to be given by the Government. In fact, it is mandated to do so under Section 26 of the Act. However, the State Government is yet to initiate the training programme and the publicity campaign.
The Chief Secretary of the State in an interaction meeting called by the Goa Chapter of Indian Institute of Public Administration 2 months ago assured the delegates as fallows:
(i) Training will be given to all govt functionaries in matters of implementing the provisions of the Act;
(ii) All public authorities will appoint PIOs/ FAAs(First appellate authorities soon;
(iii) Publicity dept would undertake awareness campaign for the public;
(iv) The Act and rules will be published in local language and be made available for nominal prices.
(v) Funds will be placed at the disposal of state information commission soon as the budget provision was made only in July 06.
(vi) None of these assurances were fulfilled. Even the commission was forced to issue 2 orders regarding the appointment and functioning of the PIOs in Amar Naik Vs Director of Information which are available on the web site of the commission.
(vii) The training of officials is more important in the States where the RTI Act was existing prior to the enactment of the Central Act. In Goa, for instance, which is one of the first few States, which enacted RTI Act, the officials as well as members of the public are still under the influence of old State Act. Under the Goa Act of 1997, not only the access to the information is costly being Rs.100/- for each application, the locus standi and the public purpose has to be proved by the applicant. Even though, these requirements are done away with under the Central Act, the State officials have to unlearn the State provisions before they learn the provisions of the Central Act. Similarly, the State Government is mandated under Section 16 of Act to provide adequate staff and funds to the State Commission for its effective functioning. In case of Goa, even 7 months after its constitution, only 4 officials were appointed and no funds were placed to its disposal. The State Government, therefore, have to consider the State Commission’s not as an unnecessary and inconvenient appendage thrust on them but as a partner in the implementation of the Act to
…2/-
- 2 -

achieve its objectives. Even for the salary of the Chief Information Commissioner who is of the rank of a Supreme Court Judge, and the day to day expenditure, the Commission has to knock at the doors of the Directorate of Information thus undermining the independence of the Commission. Inspite of these difficulties the Goa Commission has taken some important and far reaching decisions as mentioned below.

5. Important decision taken by the Commission: -

Appeal No.
Details of the case
Decisions
1
Shri Vijaykumar Bhale
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Food & Drugs, Panaji.

An accused in a criminal case is cannot be denied information on the ground that though he will get it at the time of hearing of the case against him, as long as there are no grounds under Section 8 to deny the information.
3
Ashok Menon
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Panaji.
The service particulars of Government servants are not personal information and are not exempted from disclosure.
5 & 6
Dr. G. C. Pradhan & S. K. Pradhan
Vs.
1. Nirmala Institute of Education, Panaji &
2. Goa University.
No specific notification of appropriate Government is necessary under Section 2 (h) (d) of the Act to bring the aided colleges and the Universities established under a State legislation to be covered under the RTI Act.
7
Under Secretary (Revenue),
Secretariat, Porvorim.
Vs.
Shri V. B. Prabhu Verlekar & another.
The PIO is not an aggrieved party under RTI Act and hence cannot appeal before the Commission against FAA.
11
Pranay Kamat
Vs.
PIO, Police Department
1. PIO cannot delegate his functions to APIO.
2. Cost of Appeal Petition cannot be awarded, as there is no provision.
13
Joao C. Pereira
Vs.
Police Department (H.Q.),
Panaji.

1. APIO cannot reject the request for information.
2. Directions issued to the Public Authority (DGP) to circulate the duties of the APIOs.
3. FAA has to hear the appellant and pass a speaking order.
14
C. S. Barreto
Vs.
Mamlatdar of Margao.
1. Merely because compiling of information is difficult, information cannot be denied.
2. Non-payment application fee of Rs.10/- is remediable defect and application cannot be rejected on this ground.
23
Sushant Naik
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Mines, Panaji.
1. Only the documents mentioned in Section 7 (5) can be supplied free of cost after 30 days, if the PIO did not do so in time. Other documents have to be paid for.
2. The information cannot be denied on the plea that the citizen did not meet the PIO on the appointed day.