RTI’s inefficacy: official laxity to blame

[karira]

As reported by Shyam Ranganathan in thehindu.com on 7 August 2008:
The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : RTI’s inefficacy: official laxity to blame

RTI’s inefficacy: official laxity to blame

Lack of useful response from public authorities to petitions a common complaint Information withheld; later wrong information provided
Officials fail to turn up for SIC hearings

CHENNAI: The promise of transparency held out by the Right to Information Act is being belied by hurdles presented by non-cooperation of many officials, according to activists. This is also confirmed by the rulings of the State Information Commission.

While petitioners have complained about the lack of useful and timely response from public authorities to RTI petitions, the State Information Commission has repeatedly been remarking on the lax attitude of officials entrusted with the job of providing information to the public.

In one case brought before it, the SIC said that it was “a typical case of gross indifference in dealing with a petition under RTI.” The case related to the furnishing of information on patta holders for certain survey numbers. The SIC noted that both the public information authority (PIO) and the appellate authority (AA) withheld the information and subsequently provided wrong information.

In a petition relating to information regarding alleged land grab, the SIC ruled that “this is a bizarre case of public authorities stonewalling.” Information was not forthcoming to the petitioner; moreover, the SIC noted, the officials concerned did not turn up at the hearing conducted by the Commissioner. This seems to be a trend as multiple hearings are required to dispose of some simple cases due to public officials not turning up.

Chief State Information Commissioner S. Ramakrishnan had to go to the extent of imposing the costs of the petitioner’s travel on the public authority due to his absence from consecutive hearings in a case.

“The Act stipulates speedy disposal of cases, but multiple hearings are required to make the authority concerned appear in person. Even after that, the petitioner is not guaranteed his right as some officials just ignore our order and do not furnish complete information,” says Mr. Ramakrishnan.

The problem then is that the petitioner has no recourse but to appeal again to the SIC, in which case the new petition will go to the end of the queue, making a mockery of the entire concept of timely information.

Staff shortage

However, even in cases where the SIC has noted that its orders had been “wilfully violated,” there is not much of a remedy as the commission does not keep track of whether its orders have been implemented. Mr. Ramakrishnan says the issue is one of staff shortage.

One senior official noted that the freeze on fresh recruitments over the last five years has meant that the existing officials are overworked for their normal tasks. The additional burden of providing information to all petitioners is not easy to bear, he says.

But activists say they are ready to overlook the delays in providing information if only there were a guarantee that information would be finally provided.

“We have to go step by step and the issue right now is to obtain the required information. After this battle is won, we could look into enforcing timely disclosures,” says Madhav, an activist.

The announcement that the Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission would recruit fresh staff could expose the oft-repeated excuse of ‘staff shortage’ for all inefficiencies.

[vijendra singh]

If the govt officers know that SIC shall without fail impose disciplinary action & penalty as well as ; no PIO will dare deny info to the citizens. Then the SIC will receive hardly 10 complaints per month.