Contact Your Financial Adviser Money Making MC
6
February 2017
 |
| The Total Investment & Insurance Solutions |
In the last week of January, Justice Sanjeev
Sablok of the Delhi High Court handled two cases of two Public Information
Officers (PIOs) who petitioned against penalty levied on them by the Central
Information Commissioners. He gave different judgments on the two cases, one of
which reflects on the approach of Information Commissioners, who sometimes go
beyond their jurisdiction while giving orders. The other portrays the courage
of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in giving a stiff penalty, though
it remains to be seen whether it is taken to the logical end. The Total Investment & Insurance
Solutions
One
case pertained to the Tihar Jail authorities being directed by the CIC to
pay compensation to one Mr Gandhi, who was detained for four extra days, besides
directing the prison department to frame rules for such cases. The Delhi High
Court overturned this order.
In
the other case, the PIO of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) was
directed by the CIC to be given maximum penalty of Rs25,000, which was upheld
by the Delhi High Court.
Case I: HC Overturns CIC Order on
Compensation to Prisoner
Om
Prakash Gandhi, who served one year imprisonment in Tihar Jail in a cheque
fraud case, completed his sentence but was kept in detention for four extra
days. Gandhi filed over 30 RTI applications regarding his extra detention
and the compensation that he should be paid for it. Finally, he appealed to the
Central Information Commission.
The CIC directed that the PIO should pay a
token compensation to Gandhi and also directed the Tihar Jail authorities “to
put into place a policy or guideline or regulation for a system of resolving
disputes regarding remission and paying compensation to prisoners who lost
their personal liberty due to extra detention.” The Total Investment & Insurance
Solutions
Justice Sachdev of the Delhi High Court
stayed the order of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), where the PIO of
Tihar Jail was ordered to pay compensation to Gandhi for keeping him under
extra detention. The High Court order stated, “The CIC has exceeded the
jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is
contended that the CIC appears to have exercised power vested in a
Constitutional Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is
contended that the CIC did not have the power to assess token compensation for
delay in release of prisoners. The Total Investment & Insurance Solutions
“Perusal of the order, prima facie, shows
that the CIC has sought to exercise powers beyond those conferred on it under
the Right to Information Act, 2005…Prima facie, this power does not vest in the
CIC.” The Total Investment
& Insurance Solutions
Case Il: HC Upholds CIC Order on Penalty for
Not Giving Information
An
applicant had sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, from
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)’s Project Directorate, on funds
allocated for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in animals. The information
pertained to the cost sheet for 2012-13; whether the ICAR Team at headquarters
at Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, was aware of it and; copy of the covering letter
of the price per unit for 3AB3 Indirect ELISA Kits to individual FMD centres or
network units or any other public institutes engaged in FMD sero-surveillance;
name and designation of the ICAR official(s) who had instructed and or
authorised the Project Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease (PDFMD) to issue
3AB3 Indirect ELISA and so on.
Most
of the replies by the CPIO were, “It is an institute matter.”
Since the RTI applicant was not satisfied
with the reply given, a complaint under Section 18 of the Act was filed with
the CIC. The CIC said, “We asked Dr BB Dash, CPIO of Project Directorate on
Foot and Mouth Disease to explain his reply dated 28 September 2015 in response
to various queries of the RTI application, in which he disposed of most of the
queries by stating that it was an institute matter. Dr BB Dash, CPIO, failed to
provide the information without any cogent reason. The nature of his replies,
to various queries in his letter dated 28 September 2015 shows that these were
meant to circumvent the queries raised by the complainant in her application.
All this is a pointer to wilful denial of information. Therefore, in our view,
this is a fit case for imposition of the maximum penalty of Rs25,000 on Dr BB
Dash, CPIO under Section 20 (1) Of the RTI Act.” The Total Investment & Insurance
Solutions
“…The
Head of the Project Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease is directed to ensure
that the above amount of penalty is recovered in five equal instalments from
the monthly pay of Dr BB Dash, CPIO, beginning with his pay for the month of
December 2016. The amounts so deducted should be remitted to the Deputy
Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066 by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of
Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.”
The
CIC came to the conclusion that the nature of CPIO’s replies to various queries
showed that these were meant to circumvent the queries raised by the
complainant in her application, which amounted to wilful denial of information.
The CIC also observed, “The CPIO is to provide the information sought and, in
case the information is not liable to be provided on account of it being
exempt, give sufficient reasons for denying the supply of information.”
The
Judge concluded “…the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information
sought has not been provided… No cogent explanation has been rendered for
non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22 November
2016 cannot be faulted.’’
The
petition was dismissed by Justice Sanjeev Sachdev.The Total Investment & Insurance Solutions
No comments:
Post a Comment