No options left, Ratnakar Gaikwad has to resign otherwise..

On the background of assurance given by  Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis  that a report on Ratnakar Gaikwad's role in the Ambedkar Bhavan demolition will be sent to the Governor and on  the background of surge of protest, an agitation and anger displayed by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's  disciples recently , it appears that  Chief State Information commissioner (CSIC) of Maharashtra has not left with any other option other than to resign .

Most irony part of the story is that Ratnakar Gaikwad himself has created the cause of action to remove himself from the post of CSIC under section 17 of RTI act. as per this section ,  Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the CSIC  or a State Information Commissioner ( SIC) can be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

As per section 17(3) (e) of RTI act CSIC or SIC  can be removed If he has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner

And as per section 17(4) CSIC or SIC can be removed  if he, in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emoluments arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehavior.

In a present case, Ratnakar Gaikwad has not only taken an active part in the demolition of Ambedkar  Bhavan but also saw and defended the demolition of it  in the midnight openly.

While talking to Mumbai Mirror Gaikwad admitted  that he wasn't connected with the trust, and was merely "advising" the office bearers, like so many organizations and NGOs do, and I helped them." . But he was  seen on television giving the reason for demolition in the midnight. He said  earlier while structural audit there was a hugh protest and hence they had to demolish it in midnight. That definitely  wasn't just advice. It was active participation and "Interest in action".

Ratnakar Gaikwads behavior in Ambedkar Bhawan demolition case clearly shows that he had taken a lot of interest in. It was not just a passive advice, it was definitely an active participation falls under the section 17 of the RTI act. There may be counter arguments on whether  information commissioners while in office are allowed to give advice to NGO's or people. But definitely, they are not allowed to take an active part in any organizations matters directly or indirectly.

If Government reports Ratnakar Gaikawad's involvement in Ambedkar Bhawan  demolition case to the Governor, the Governor may start his removal procedure. And looking it to the increasing pressure on Government and assurance given by chief minister in assembly Government will definitely send such report. In that case, Governor as per section 17 (2) may suspend him from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during an inquiry. To avoid all this embarrassment Ratnakar Gaikwad has an option of  only to Resign immediately.

Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

Vijay Kumbhar

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist

Phone – 9923299199

Email – kvijay14@gmail.com

Website – http://surajya.org/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/kvijay14

Twitter -  https://twitter.com/Vijaykumbhar62

YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14

More difficult days ahead for Right To Information

Last week Supreme Court stayed some part of order given in namit Sharma case. Though SC declined to give stay on entire judgement, it stayed some part of it. However, this stay has increased more confusion.

 Last year Supreme Court in its order given in namit sharma case said, "The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a ‘judicial member’, while the other an ‘expert member’. The judicial member should be a person possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions. A law officer or a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced law at least for a period of twenty years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work. We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners. Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of India."

 And it had also said that "The appointment of the judicial members to any of these posts shall be made ‘in consultation’ with the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States, as the case may be”.

After the judgement in namit Sharma case, union government had filed review petition. Mrs.Aruna Roy and Shailesh Gandhi had intervened in this case and requested for the stay on judgement. SC gave stay on above two points but it also directed that wherever Chief Information Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be decided in a matter coming before the Information Commissioners, he will ensure that the matter is heard by information commissioner who has knowledge and experience in the field of Law.

This order has created huge confusion. Now question is, how will Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) decide that there is an intricate question of law in a matter that is before the Information Commissioners (IC) ? How will he find it out ?, What rights he has got under RTI ?, As  both the  IC and CIC are equal in status , there is no provision in RTI to  communicate anything about nature of appeal to CIC.And how to find out or who and how will decide intricate questions of Law?. Some times very small points become very big question of law and some times even a big intricate question of law  may not come to light due to lack of knowledge. As well as for those IC's having nature of shifting the responsibility on others shoulders, this is excellent opportunity to transfer the appeals to another bench on the so-called ground of involving intricate question of law.

 Next point is how the member having knowledge and experience in the field of Law will work ?. Will he work with another member as per the cases or, will he hear all the cases transferred by all the information commissioners? Another fear is if unintentionally or deliberately IC's  start to transfer the appeals pretending it involves  intricate question of law, imagine  what will be the scenario? .Or it may happen that appellant dissatisfied with the decision of IC may approach the CIC on the grounds that appeal involves intricate question of law. What will CIC do? Because he does not have any right to here or decide anything on appeal decided by IC and Supreme Court says CIC will ensure that a Bench of which hears such matter at least one member has knowledge and experience in the field of Law.