CIC’s apathy irks RTI activists

​Hyderabad: People generally look with awe at the public servants with the hope that they would redress their grievances. If they fail to discharge their responsibilities, let alone addressing their problems, there must be some punishment. But, they go scot-free every time.

The case in point is Andhra Pradesh Chief Information Commissioner M Ratan, the retired IPS officer.As the Chief Information Commissioner he has ample opportunity to redress the grievances of the people in general and RTI applicants in particular.

However, he chooses to ignore the queries of the RTI applicants and has always been sympathetic towards the PIOs (Public Information Officer) who deliberately ignore the RTI applications. There is not a single instance when he initiated any action against the PIOs who did not furnish information to the applicants as per the enactment.

The Chief Information Commissioner enjoys the status equal to that of the Chief Secretary.He never followed transparency, accountability while discharging his duty as the Chief Information Commissioner.

In the latest instance, the sitting MLA of Mangalagiri A Ramakrishna Reddy in an application under the RTI sought information on November 10, 2015 regarding the qualifications of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of the AP Assembly Secretariat.

The MLA sought the information on
(1) Form which university the In-charge Secretary and Deputy Secretary obtained Law Degree
(2) Year, Registration No. and Enrolment No. pertaining to the said qualification
(3) From which university the In-charge Secretary and Deputy Secretary obtained Degree qualifications
(4) Year, Registration No. and Enrolment No. pertaining to the said qualification
(5) From which School/College the In-charge Secretary and Deputy Secretary have passed 10th class/Intermediate
(6) Year, Registration No. and Enrolment no. pertaining to the said qualification.

Either the Deputy Secretary of the AP Assembly Secretariat, who is the PIO, or the Secretary, the first appellate authority, did not furnish the information during the mandatory period of thirty days.

The aggrieved MLA preferred an appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner demanding both information and action against the PIO and the first appellate authority for their failure in furnishing the information.

The Chief Information Commissioner issued instructions to both the parties to appear before him on July 13, 2016. During the hearing, the PIO sought fifteen days time to furnish information to the appellant after verification of the records in the department.

Instead of penalising the erring officials for not furnishing information, the Chief Information Commissioner issued order to the effect:

“It is noticed that eight months have elapsed from the date of filing of 6(1) application but no information was furnished to the appellant till date. The Public Information Officer has also not produced Register I being maintained by him for the perusal of the Chief Information Commissioner as directed in the APIC notice.

In the circumstances, the Public Information Officer is directed to furnish the information to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under compliance to the Commission.”

The Public Information Officer is further directed to cause enquiry into the matter as to how the papers filed by the appellant, which were acknowledged by their office vide office seal, were misplaced and submit enquiry report to the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Following instructions from the Chief Information Commissioner, the PIO submitted incomplete and misleading information to the applicant, MLA A Ramakrishna Reddy, which is, in essence, in the following lines.

“Regarding the qualification of K Satyanarayana Rao, Secretary (In-charge), he has not submitted Law Degree Certificate for entry into Service Register b) P Balakrishnamacharyulu, Deputy Secretary, from Osmania University in 2011 with Roll No.4108195, c) M Vijaya Raju, Deputy Secretary, from Osmania University in 2014 with Roll No. 172411831159. K Satyanarayana Rao, Secretary (I/c), Bachelor of Arts from Osmania University, Hyderabad, b) P Balakrishnamacharyulu, Deputy Secretary, Bachelor of Arts, c) M Vijaya Raju, Deputy Secretary, Bachelor of Arts. K Satyanarayana Rao, Secretary Taluka High School, Tenali, Guntur District in 1973, b) P Balakrishnamacharyulu, Deputy Secretary, S.G.A.P.J.M. Vidyalayam, Boys High School, Eluru, W.G. District in 1975 c) M Vijaya Raju, Deputy Secretary, The Lutheren High School, Bhimavaram, W.G. District, 1981.”

Aggrieved by the incomplete and misleading information furnished by the PIO, the MLA filed another complaint with the chief information commissioner. Surprisingly, the Chief Information Commissioner, instead of penalising the PIO as per the provisions of the enactment, in his order on December 22, 2016, issued show cause notice to the PIO for not furnishing the information within stipulated time. He also stated that the action on the show-cause notice shall be dealt with separately.

In essence, the Chief Information Commissioner made the whole issue of furnishing information a farce by not initiating any action against the PIO or the first appellate. In addition, the chief information commissioner blatantly refused to take into consideration the orders issued by the central information commission.

Moreover, he has chosen to ignore the government order No 66, which stipulates that the order of the commission shall be pronounced in the open proceedings and in writing duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the commission for this purpose.

The CIC brazenly states, “In view of the above, the A.P. Information Commission exercising powers U/s 18(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 directs the Public Information Officer to place before it all the material collected for the purpose of enquiry with any conclusion arrived at on 18.01.2017.”

If this is the result while eliciting information by a sitting MLA under the Right to Information Act, one could imagine the plight of the common man.

In another instance, the same Chief Information Commissioner was more than sympathetic towards an MRO who threatened the RTI applicant that he would face ‘unwarranted circumstances’ if he continued with the applications.

Dr Divakar Babu of Vijayawada in an application sought to know the details of land falling under ceiling after the then Kankipadu MRO stated to that effect. However, the MRO instead of providing information threatened the applicant with ‘unwarranted circumstances (sic).’

While hearing the appeal, the chief information commissioner advised the MRO to desist from writing such threatening words. He did not take any action nor impose any fine for her failure in providing information and for threatening the applicant.