--- On Wed, 5/20/09, OpenSpace <[email protected]> wrote: From: Young India <[email protected]>
A large number of Information Commissioners are writing vague and unreasoned Orders that are clearly outside the ambit of the RTI Act 2005. Also, by not awarding penalties and recommending disciplinary action against defaulting PIOs, they are actively abetting delay, denial and concealment of information by PIOs. *But do CICs / SICs know that this is ILLEGAL AND CAN GET THEM JAILED FOR MANY YEARS? *This is what the INDIAN PENAL CODE says: *IPC Section 217. Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment... *“Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable… shall be punished with imprisonment… for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”** *IPC Section 218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment… *“Whoever, being a public servant… charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment… shall be punished with imprisonment… for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”** And this is what TWO HIGH COURTS SAY ON THE IMPORTANCE OF RTI PENALTY: 1) Most recent DELHI HC Order: http://www.box.net/shared/yr10bgoi02 (Key parts are highlighted in blue.) 2) An earlier Order of PUNJAB-HARYANA HC: http://www.box.net/shared/f70irf3r45 It says, upholding the penalty imposed by SIC Haryana: *“The petitioner has completely ignored the provisions of the Act and appears to have awaken only after the applicant-respondent No.3 has asked for information and filed the first appeal. The petitioners cannot avoid the mandatory provisions of sub-section 1 of Section 20 of the Act on the excuse that any training programme as envisaged by sub-section (1) (a) of Section 26 of the Act has not been organised by the* *Government.”* Now read this SUPREME COURT ORDER ON THE IMPORTANCE OF GIVING REASONED ORDERS: http://www.box.net/shared/l42s2erku5 It says, striking down an appellate authority’s unreasoned Orders, *“Order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know that the appellate authority has applied its mind… Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation… The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal… afresh in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of being heard to respondent no. 1, and also by passing a SPEAKING ORDER.”* Are all Information Commissioners passing soft and unreasoned orders? NO! For example, read these three crystal-clear orders passed by TAMIL NADU SIC: http://www.box.net/shared/sx42xbc645 Or read these two clear orders of GOA’S CHIEF SIC: http://www.box.net/shared/jjj1z9fmhr http://www.box.net/shared/1uujeqdksc *What stands out in these Orders is:* a) How clearly reasoned they are b) How they put the onus on PIO to justify his actions and show that he acted diligently, as per section 19(5) and 20(1) last para c) How they readily issue show-cause notice for penalty and disciplinary action in the order itself d) How they readily order compensation for appellant e) How they put responsibility for taking remedial measures on the head of the public authority By contrast, read samples of Maharashtra SIC’s vague orders: Dr Suresh Joshi’s Orders: http://www.box.net/shared/3sb6zr8ifs Ramanand Tiwari’s Orders: http://www.box.net/shared/3nygkmilji Naveen Kumar’s Orders: http://www.box.net/shared/ennxz4p14t *These Orders are as clear as mud! Salient features:* a) The structure is confused. In the case of Joshi & Tiwari, the distinction between “Grounds” and “Orders” is itself arbitrary. Most of the orders are written under the subhead of “Grounds”. b) Whether the appeal is “allowed”, “partly allowed”, “dismissed” or “disposed off” is the main point of their Orders. Directions to PIO are vague or non-existent. c) Even where the PIO has clearly defaulted in his duties, it is plainly seen that he was not asked to explain and justify his action as per section 19(5). (As to how strictly justifications are sought by other SICs, read the BLUE HIGHLIGHTS in the Tamil Nadu Orders.) d) Even where PIO is directed to give the information, it is done with lack of conviction and strictness. The key provision of sec 7(2) is totally ignored. e) SIC Naveen Kumar’s Orders are in a class of their own in vagueness and unlawful reasoning – frequently remanding appellant back to the 1st Appellate Authority, “Interim Decisions”, “Decisions” etc. CAN WE NOT SEEK LEGAL ACTION AGAINST EVERY CIC / SIC WHO HABITUALLY PASSES POORLY REASONED & UNREASONED ORDERS IGNORING KEY SECTIONS OF RTI ACT SUCH AS SEC. 7(2), SEC. 19(5) AND SEC. 20? Can we not have them jailed under IPC Sec. 217 and 218? We want legal advice on how to do this. Please help. Warm Regards, Krish 98215 88114 N.A.Shah Ansari Konark, Puri Dist, Orissa India-752111 hello- 09437036471 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
