Recently contrary to the preamble of Right to Information (RTI) act the practice of rejection of RTI applications by quoting section 8 of RTI had become a norm. The Public Information Officers (PIO) all over India is rejecting RTI applications without applying mind. However, It appears that the Madras high court has come to the rescue of the bedridden RTI act. The Madras High Court yesterday passed severe strictures on Public Information officers who mechanically reject the application under RTI. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Time Nadu Public service commission (TNPSC) against the order given by Tamil Nadu State information commission (TNSIC). It further directed the Tamil Nadu Government to issue a circular to all its departments, PSUs & corporations warning about legal consequences of not furnishing information under the RTI Act.
 |
Image courtesy pildat.org |
1. Nowadays, Officials are used to adopting a tactic answer in a mechanical manner that the information sought for is exempted in the light of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, without actually ascertaining as to whether the information sought falls within the ambit of the said provision.
2. Such PIO’s are unfit to hold the post of Public Information Officer or any other post in connection with the discharge of duties under the RTI Act and they should be shown the doors
3. Mere pendency of the matter is not a bar to furnish details even if it pertains to the very same case pending before the Court. Unless or otherwise there is an interim order, then the information need not be given for the present till the disposal of those matters
4. The purpose of enactment of the RTI Act itself is to ensure transparency in all respects. Moreover, a reading of section 8(1)(d) shows that it relates to commercial confidence, trade secrets, etc., and it does not strictly prohibit the authority concerned from providing other detail.
5. TNPSC had first decided not to give details and thereafter, searched for relevant provisions.
In the year 2008 Mr P.Muthian from Trichirappalli had sought information on the following points
a) Total number of vacancies called for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008;
b) Number of seats allocated to the Backward Community out of the total number of vacancies called for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008;
c) Number of seats allocated to the Most Backward Community out of the total number of vacancies called for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008;
d) Out of seats allocated to the Backward Community, the list of the selected candidates from the sub-castes of Muthuraja and Muthriyar;
e) Out of seat allocated to the Most Backward Community, the list of selected candidates from the sub-castes Ambalakarar;
f) Out of seat allocated to the Most Backward Community, the list of selected candidates from Vanniya Kula Shatriar sub-castes (Vanniyar, Vanniya, Vanniya Gounder, Kandar, Padayachi Palli and Agni Kular Shathriar)."
Except for point ‘C’ TNPSC refused to part with the details citing Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. It held that since the caste-wise breakup of the selected candidates have got nothing to do with the public activity and such disclosure would amount to an invasion of the privacy of individuals, apart from the creation of communal discontent and strife.
However, following an appeal, the TNSIC had ruled that every citizen is entitled to a transparent view of the functioning of public authorities and the trepidation shown by the Public Authority to the demand will not be ground in denying details to the public in contra to the provisions of the RTI Act. TNSIC also ordered to information sought to be provided free of cost.
The court observed that” On close scrutiny of the Preamble and the object of the Act, it is manifestly obvious that the scope of freedom of information has been widely spread with the object and purpose to give the right to information to its citizens in order to ensure transparency in government dealings. From a bare reading of Section 6 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that any person, who desires to obtain information under the Act shall have to make a request in writing to the authority prescribed under the Act. It is not necessary that a person seeking information is a citizen of the country or has a direct interest in the matter. As a matter of fact, the provision of Section 6 confers right to information to any person for the obvious reason that right to information flows from the right to the expression”
The court rejected
the contention of TNPSC that the details sought for by the respondent are not
at all warranted and that it would amount to an invasion of privacy, saying it,
cannot be accepted, especially when the selection itself is based on caste wise
quota. The disclosure of caste wise breakup will certainly inure to the benefit
of candidates to ascertain as to whether they actually fall under the reservation
quota or not. When the general list itself has already been published for
public view, as stated in the petition, there is nothing wrong in disclosing
the details to the respondent. In the list, the details of caste, including
sub-caste have to be necessarily mentioned and the contention that such
revelation would create communal disharmony is not acceptable. As long as there
is a provision for appointment on the basis of reservation, what prevents the
authorities in unearthing those details to the public and when the details
sought for by the respondent are furnished, it will throw a clear light /
picture as to under what category, a candidate was placed.
The court also observed that the apprehension of TNPSC, that in-depth description of castes will create communal unrest, is only an illusion and imaginary. The court also passed remark that ‘ if it is the real concern of TNPSC and the Government, they should think of abolishing the quota system as well as the removal of a column regarding caste particulars in the school certificate itself, so that the people of Tamil Nadu could stand united under one roof irrespective of caste, creed, religion, etc. at least in the year 2050 and our State will be a model State for the whole of the country’
Coming down heavily
on the PIO’s who avoid providing information under the RTI Act (Right to
Information Act), the High Court observed that such officials are unfit to hold
the post and should be shown the doors.
