Orissa Information Commission or a Trojan Horse? 

What the RTI Act promised?

Right to Information Act, universally acclaimed as one of the most progressive Acts ever legislated in post-Independence India, came into full force throughout the country including  the State of Orissa on 12^th of Oct. 05. As is well-known, the quintessence of the Act is to entitle and enable each citizen, the real sovereign of our republic to demand and receive information from any public authority, which is run on the money paid by citizen tax-payer. Specifically speaking, Section 4 of the Act mandates that each public authority is required to disclose voluntarily and proactively 17 categories of documents, which any citizen can access instantly in various ways including inspection, without having to submit any formal application or application fee. The basic objective of Section 4 of the Act is thus to facilitate a citizen or a group of citizens to access such proactively disclosed information instantly, and that too without facing any hassles, such as filing an application in a prescribed form, payment of application fees or waiting for 30 days as may be required under Section 6 of the Act. On the other hand, the Act has empowered each State Government to constitute an autonomous commission to hear and adjudicate the complaints and appeals from the  citizens, if they feel aggrieved by undue denial of information, any manner of harassment or issue of false, incomplete or misleading information by a public authority. As is further well-known, the State Govt. has constituted the State Information Commission by appointing two retired Govt. officials Mr. Dhirendra Nath Padhi and Prof. Radhamohan as State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner respectively.

What a State Information Commission should basically do? 

As laid down in Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act, the Information Commission on receiving the complaints or appeals from the aggrieved citizens may initiate enquiry into the matter and issue summons to the concerned Public Information Officer and Public Authority for hearing. The Commission just like a Civil Court has the power to penalize the concerned PIO by way of imposing monetary fine to the extent of Rs.25,000/- and suitable disciplinary action affecting the service career of the concerned PIO and moreover to direct the concerned public authority to compensate for the loss or detriment, if any suffered by the applicant-citizen.

 According to Section 15 of the RTI Act, the Information Commissioners shall discharge their duties independently without being subjected to directions from any other authority, whosoever that may be. The Section 25 of the Act has entrusted the Commission with the authority to monitor and thereby to ensure proper implementation of the Act at various levels. As per the said Section, the Commission may direct any public authority to amend its practice, if it be found to be contravening the letter or spirit of the Act. Thus the Information Commission, as conceived by the RTI Act, is to function as a superior quasi-judicial body  to  act independently and autonomously, without any fear or favour, just to defend to the last nail the inviolable right of the public to know about how and whether their salaried servants are performing the duties assigned to them. 

But if we take a cursory look at the functioning of the Commission in the State, its role so far is not only deplorably confusing, but also that of a butcher against both letter and spirit of the Act. The year-long experience of what the Orissa Information Commission has done is a classic testimony to what a Commission shouldn’t do under the authority of RTI Act.

How transparent was SIC’s awareness business? 

As mentioned already, each public authority is obligated under Section 4 of the Act to maintain and voluntarily disclose 17 categories of records held by them in a duly catalogued and indexed manner and such records pertain among others to the particulars of its organization, functions and duties, the powers and duties of its officers and employees, the procedures followed by them in the decision-making process, their monthly remuneration and allowances,  the names, designations and other particulars of PIOs etc. And such proactive disclosures need to be placed on the website of the concerned public authority and as well be made available in the form of printed manuals, which any interested citizen can inspect and ask for the copy of an extract there-from. Since the State Information Commission is itself a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act, it should have undertaken such disclosure suo motu on its website from the day one of its functioning. But it is astonishing that the State Commission, despite several rejoinders addressed to them from various quarters to this effect has obstinately refrained from making the needed disclosure till date. And it is no strange that following the negative example of   the Commission, the whole lot of public authorities across the State are simply neglectful of their obligation to make the suo motu disclosure about themselves as warranted under the Act. Some among them have not taken any step in this regard, and others have made only a ritual of it.

Can the Information Commission act as a Funding Agency?

Contrary to its role as a quasi-judicial body as defined by the Act, Orissa Information Commission during the past year turned itself into a funding agency of typical sort, engaged in collection of money from different sources and distribution of the same in the form of grant-in-aid to their pet agencies and NGOs in the name of awareness campaign. Ironically enough, the Commission did all this in a clandestine manner and even violating the common minimum norms of financial transaction by a public authority that are in place in the State. Not only that. Shamelessly enough, both the Commissioners were found inaugurating with much pomp and ceremony the so-called awareness events like RTI camps, workshops and seminars funded by them. It is worth mentioning here that the Act nowhere entrusts the Commission with the job of conducting any awareness campaign by itself and get thereby involved in financial transactions related to it. Rather the Section 26 of the RTI Act has entrusted the Central Govt. or a State Government as the case may be to conduct all sorts of awareness and sensitisation programmes to spread the message of RTI among the public at large. Once the State Commission got bogged down in the financial deals and petty organizational miscellany, the Commission lost its basic character as a quasi-judicial body to dispense justice to the complainants and appellants, and took on the nefarious role of a    fund-raiser and a fund-giver. And this singular fact explains why the State Commission has spectacularly failed in performing its due role as a civil court on one hand and a monitor of the implementation of the Act at various levels of governance on the other.

However, if the Commission ever felt that the line of activities they were pursuing was just and legal, then they could have gone for a consultation with all concerned or alternatively for inviting public opinion on their proposed strategy through the aegis of their website (www.orissasoochanacommission.org). With the things done that way, the Commission could have maintained minimum transparency in all their transactions and gained thereby  credibility too from the people at large. It is worth mentioning here that the Central Information Commission has put their proactive disclosures coupled with the administrative decisions taken by them from time to time on their website (www.cic.gov.in). Now the basic question that haunts every sensible citizen who is concerned with the future of RTI in the State is - should the Orissa Information Commission continue to behave the way it did  during the whole of 2006 or there is an imperative need to cry a halt to its manner of betrayal to RTI Act 2005?  

Pradip Pradhan

On behalf of Right to Food Campaign, Orissa

Mobile- 99378-43482 , dated 9 Feb. 2007