RTI champion is now a ‘victim’

[sidmis]

RTI champion is now a ‘victim’
as reported by Ritu Sarin, September 10, 2008 Indian Express

New Delhi, September 9: The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has received an unusual complaint from a ‘victim’ of the file-noting disclosure regime ushered in by the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The complainant is none other than A N Tewari, former DoPT secretary who was responsible for drafting the RTI Act and, shortly after its enactment, was appointed Central Information Commissioner. In his three years in the Central Information Commission (CIC) Tewari was known to be walking a tightrope since he advocated a practical disclosure of file notings as against what he described as an idealistic disclosure.

But little did he realise that he would become party to the perils of file disclosures and end up with a legal notice with a demand of compensation of Rs 1 crore.

Tewari, last month, informed Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah as well as the DoPT about the legal notice he received, thanks to disclosure of notings of a sensitive appointment file he signed in 2004.

The controversy comes at a time when the DoPT continues to maintain on its website that file notings were exempt from disclosure via the RTI Act, which has been challenged by the CIC, resulting in disclosure of notings in hundreds of cases.

The file in question dealt with the appointment of James K Joseph, a former accountant general of Kerala, who was selected as the administrative member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) located at Kochi. The selection committee was headed by Justice K G Balakrishnan (the present Chief Justice of India), but due to objections raised by DoPT officials and the Intelligence Bureau, Tewari revoked the selection order.

The notings of the sensitive file were given by the DoPT to an RTI applicant in Jharkhand, who had applied for the post of being a judicial member of the CAT and shared these with Joseph, whose earlier request for the same file notings had been turned down by the DoPT.

Joseph’s legal notice, dated May 2008, available with The Indian Express, names Tewari as well as the former joint secretary and Director of the DoPT, both of whom wrote lengthy observations on the appointment file.

It has charged the three officers with making notings which are “malicious” and “defamatory” and alleges that the complainant was “injured and pained on getting the information about the file notings which contains malicious and fabricated imputations, this is a wilful omission and breach of statutory duty”.

When contacted, Tewari said the Joseph case had been taken up by him at a meeting of the CIC and that he had also informed the DoPT about the development.

He said, “This is an example of the perils of indiscriminate disclosure of file notings. While there is much in favour of disclosure of file notings, it should be done in a limited and restrained manner. Some guidelines are needed on which file notings should be given to RTI applicants and others kept out of the transparency regime.”

IndianExpress.com :: RTI champion is now a ‘victim’

[maneesh kumar]

File notings are heart of decision making. Under no circumstances they should be exempt from disclosure. It is more so because 'discretion' is an area where arbitrariness and discrimination comes. Without referring to the case in question about which I have no details, if exercise of discretion can be justified on record it is fine, if not, there has to be accountability as what is involved is public money.

[rajub]

If file notings are "information" the exemption sections are applicable to them.

But the moot question is how to test whether the notings in quesion attract the exemption sections without disclosing the notings.

Same difficulty will arise if some guidelines are issued.