scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeIndia21 of 29 state information commissions did not hold any RTI hearings...

21 of 29 state information commissions did not hold any RTI hearings during lockdown

Only 7 commissions made provision for taking up urgent matters, a study by Satark Nagrik Sangathan & Centre for Equity Studies showed.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: Out of 29 Information Commissions in the country, 21 state panels did not hold any hearings to adjudicate complaints and appeals of RTI applicants during lockdown, a study by voluntary groups Satark Nagrik Sangathan and Centre for Equity Studies showed.

The study assessed the status of Information Commissions, adjudicating bodies in RTI matters, during lockdown, which was imposed nationwide on March 25.

The study said 21 commissions of Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal did not hold hearings.

“Only seven commissions, made provision for taking up urgent matters or those related to life and liberty during the period when normal functioning was affected due to the lockdown. These were the Central Information Commission and the state information commissions of Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Manipur, Punjab and Telangana. The SIC of Rajasthan made provision for hearing such matters, though only from May 4, 2020,” it said.

The commissions also known as transparency watchdogs mandated to enforce proactive disclosure of information from government were found wanting on their website, according to the study, with websites of 11 commissions did not showing any information about the functioning of the IC during lockdown.

The appeals and complaints against public authorities of the Central government and Union Territories, Supreme Court and High Courts besides Public Sector Undertakings and autonomous Institutions set by Centre are heard by the Central Information Commission while those of State are heard by respective State Information Commissions, according to the Right to Information Act.

The functioning of the state information commission is almost like the Central Information Commission.

When an RTI applicant is not satisfied with the response of the officer handling his query or with the appeal within the department against the decision, a second appeal is filed before the Information Commission, independent bodies to adjudicate the matter.

Eleven Commissions referred in the study are Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura, it said.

“The websites of 3 ICs – Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Nagaland – were not accessible during the lockdown even though attempts were made to reach the websites on different days between May 1 and the May 11, 2020, when the web analysis was undertaken,” a statement from Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri of SNS said.

The study also found that Jharkhand and Tripura did not have any commissioners for varying lengths of time and were completely defunct as the serving information commissioner in both retired during the period of the lockdown.

Four State Information Commissions were functioning without a Chief Information Commissioner- Bihar, Goa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, it said.


Also read: Rajasthan’s Jan Soochna, mother of RTI, is the ultimate weapon against petty corruption


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

2 COMMENTS

  1. In Bihar, at the Patna based State Information Commission office, the R.T.I. Complaints are not getting hearing, as per provisions of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 & Bihar Right To Information Rules 2006. I would like to refer Two Orders passed by Sri Narendra Kumar Sinha, one of the Information Commissioners of Bihar. (1) Case No. C 602/2019 : Tarun Kumar Mukherjee Vs. District Transport Office, represented by its Public Information Officer cum District Transport Officer, one Sri A.K.Thakur. The case was heard at length, over two dates, despite clear violation of the R.T.I. Act, by the concerned Authority, the case was dropped by the Information Commissioner, on 06/01/2020. Earlier , in another Complaint Case, C 397/2019 : Tarun Kumar Mukherjee Vs. First Appellate Authority, District Co-operative Society, Patna : though the Compl;aint was directed against the Order passed by the Joint-Registrar, of the District Co-Operative Society, Patna, the said Authority was not even Noticed; instead the the Public Information Officer of the Office of District Co-Operative Society was called through Notice , against whom a First Appeal was lodged, and Petitioner challenged the Order of the Joint Registrar. Hence, the Information Commissioner, Sri Narendra Kumar Sinha, arbitrarily, changed the impugned Order itself and dropped the Case, against the First Appellate Authority of District Co-Operative Society, despite a cogent Complaint filed by the Petitioner. Hence justice was denied and such is the ground reality at the state Information Commission Office, at Patna.

  2. When state commission biased appellate Authority in that condition where I lodge complaint against information commission or chief information commission please let me know.

    Sumant kumar gupta
    9831374168

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular