NGO demands dismissal of Information Commissioners of Odisha
24 Mar, 2013A two-day rally and demonstration was organized by the Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (Odisha Campaign for Right to Information) before Odisha Legislative Assembly on 18th and 19th March, 2013. The NGO was demanding dismissal of all the Information Commissioners of the State Information Commissioners at the State Information Commission (SIC) and complete withdrawal of Odisha RTI Rules, 2005. A rally of 400 RTI Activists started from the office of Odisha State Information Commission on 18th March after holding 30-minute demonstration and burning down decisions of the Commission in the public. The rally then reached at lower PMG and held a demonstration demanding dismissal of all Information Commissioners and withdrawal of anti-people of Odisha RTI Rules, 2005. As per the memorandum it has been claimed that the SIC is not functioning properly and it has primarily been alleged that:
- Enquiry into all Complaint cases filed under Section 17.
Since 2006, more than 60 complaints have been lodged against Chief Orissa Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners under Section 17 of RTI Act on the grounds of inefficiency, misbehaviour, corruption, vested interests and moral turpitude by the aggrieved citizens. From the information obtained through RTI Act, the series of Complaints filed have not been brought to the notice of Governor and have been dealt with by an officer in the rank of Deputy Secretary.
- Arbitrary and illegal practice of Summer Vacation and Puja vacation Leave by the Commission.
The Information Commissioners of the state use to suspend hearing of the cases and take leave for days together terming it as Summer Vacation Leave, Puja Vacation leave and the like. Taking leave as Summer Vacation or Puja vacation is nowhere in practice in any office of quasi judicial bodies of the country. The dues payable against the days of leave should be recovered from their monthly salary and allowances in tune with the principle of ‘no work, no pay’.
- Review of the tainted Decisions of Orissa Information Commission.
Many decisions made by State Information Commission have gone against the letter and spirit of RTI Act. For instance,
- onus of proof lies on the complainant,
- complaints on Section-4 don’t come under purview of adjudication by the Commission,
- BPL persons are not exempt from fees against cost of information, and
- absence of the complainant who has been summoned by speed-post is not condonable.
- Commission to be directed for resuming the hearing of about 7000 cases, which were closed arbitrarily.
The Information Commissioners have disposed and closed more than 7000 cases without holding any hearing thereon and have simply remanded the same to the respective First Appellate Authorities. The FAAs have neither heard the case nor submitted any compliance report to the Commission.
- State Information Commission should not squander the public money after vindictive litigation against RTI activists.
It has been alleged that the Orissa Information Commission, Mr. D.N.Padhi, has abused his office and authority as Chief OSIC in league with State Commissioners. A few days before retirement, he instituted a defamation suit valued Rs.1 lakh against two well-known RTI activists to hound its critics into silence by way of lodging false litigations against them.
- The SIC should write all decisions and correspondences in Odia language-
Under Section 4(4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. of the RTI Act, all proactively disclosed information {section 4(1b)} should be disseminated in local language. It has been demanded that the decisions of the Commission as these are in the nature of suo motu disclosures provided under Section 4 of the Act, need to be written and published in Odia language. The English language used by the Commissioners in their orders suffers from a lot of grammatical and technical errors.
- No fees should be collected from BPL people.
Under section 7(5) Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government. Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government. of RTI Act, the BPL people are exempted from paying any kind of fees like application fee {section -6(1)}, fee for information {section-7(1)} and additional fee for information {section 7(5) Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government. Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government. }. Even though the Odisha RTI Rules do not prescribe the collection of fees towards the cost of information from the BPL people, fees is collected from the BPL RTI applicants by government offices and Odisha Information Commission too.
The petition requests the governor to make an enquiry into the above matters by the Supreme Court as required under Setion 17(1), or alternatively to dismiss all the Information Commissioners of Odisha on the basis of the above mentioned prima facie evidences as required under Section 17(3) of RTI Act 2005, and direct thereon the Government of Odisha to appoint a new batch of Information Commissioners by way of following a transparent procedure.