Narayan Varma

 

 

Right To Information

 

Subject of ‘Right to Information’ is a hot news item since last 3 months.  The Right to Information Act, 2005 was passed by the parliament on 11th May 2005, it became operational from 12th October 2005.  Hardly a week goes by when some news about it does not appear in media.  The Act has caught the attention of the citizens and many have started using it.  It is time now we, professionals, start using it.

 

Aruna Roy is among those whose lobbying resulted in the Right to Information Act, 2005 coming into force.  Recently, she said that the road to getting the Act passed had been a long one and now the onus is on the citizens to use it.

 

It is reported that senior bankers have taken a tough stand on the subject of R to I. They have announced that information will not be given to just anybody. ‘The person seeking information has to establish the purpose’.  This is against the provision in the Act.  Section 6 clearly provides that applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information.  However, banks have decided that they will rather fight it out in the court if such information violates the age-old practice of banking secrecy and clients confidentiality.  However, it is worth  stating here that Section 22 of the Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force etc.  The interesting issue will arise about the discrimination of PSU banks vs. private banks, the former covered under R to I Act while later remaining outside the purview.

 

Very interesting issue has arisen in regards to ‘third party information’.  Section 11 provides that when PIO intends to disclose any information or part thereof which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, PIO shall within five days from the request, give a written notice to such party of such request and invite him to make a submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information.  It is very elaborately drafted section; on one hand it protects the third party and on the other hand casts the responsibility on PIO to take a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information on record.

 

An antique dealer had supplied goods for use in the sets of movie ‘Black’, produced by Sanjay Leela Bhansali.  Due to fire on the set, the antiques are stated to have been destroyed and she is not compensated for it.  She has applied under R to I Act and requested for the copies of the producer’s returns of income for A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06.

The commissioner of income - tax, who is appointed as a PIO under the Act sent a notice to the producer whether he has any objection to the disclosure of the information as requested.  The producer has objected to the same.  Based on the said objection, PIO has declined to provide the information to the antique dealer.  She has now furnished the appeal against the said Order of denial of the information to the Chief Commissioner, who is the appellate authority.  She is given a personal hearing and will appear along with very knowledgeable person on the subject of R to I.

 

If antique dealer loses the first appeal, she informs me that she shall file second appeal to the State Information Commission under section 19.  This shall be very interesting case to wateh.

 

Another interesting issue that has arisen related to R to I Act is regarding ‘file notings’.  It has been a new twist.  The Prime Minister has ordered that disclosures of the file notings relating to only development and social issues be provided and in other cases be refused.  The definition of “Information” under the R to I Act reads as under:

          “information” means any material in any form, including records,

            documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,

             circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples,

             models, data material held in any electronic form and information

             relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public

             authority under any other law for the time being in force.

All social activists have reacted very strongly on such restrictions imposed by PMO stating that the Prime Minister’s action on file notings is “blatantly against the letter and spirit of the Act”.  This is also an issue to watch with interest.

 

I end by reproducing an interesting cartoon by the ingenious Mr. Laxman as it appeared in TOI on 05.12.2005