RTI not for assets, liabilities of officials: HC

[sidmis]

RTI not for assets, liabilities of officials: HC
as reported in Citizenmatters.in | September 30, 2008

Recently, on 1st July 2008, the High Court of Karnataka declared that personal information of the public authorities cannot be made available through the Right To Inforamtion Act, 2005. The order was a result of a writ petition filed by H E Rajashekarappa, Joint Director (Statistics) at Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department, at Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore. Rajashekarappa filed the case on 30th June 2006.

On 17 March 2006, one Narasimha Murthy, retired statistical inspector filed an RTI application with the PIO at the Government Planning and Statistics Department, M S Building, asking for the total assets and liablities of Rajashekarappa, for the period of 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05.

But Rajashekarappa objected to his application and the Public Information Officer (PIO) rejected the application (by an order at Annexure ‘E'). This aggrieved Murthy and he filed an appeal under section 19(8) of Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Joint Secretary, Government Planning and Statistics Department, the Appellate Authority Under the RTI Act.

After this move Rajashekarappa was asked by the appellate body to furnish the required documents sought by Murthy but yet again he asked to cancel the application. The reasons given by his counsels, M S Prathima and S V Narasimhan were that the details of assets and liabilities is personal information and does not fall under the public affairs of the public authority.

The counsels also metioned that the appellate body made a blunder by setting aside the order made by the PIO and asking Rajashekarappa to furnish details. Thus Murthy was asked to pay a penalty of total Rs.10,000, with Rs.5000 due in three months from the ruling, and his application was declared canceled.

The High Court's also ruled that it cannot be said that the RTI Act encompasses the personal information of the officials of public authorities. Thus Murthy had no right to seek such information under this Act. The court also called his application troublesome and an attempt to settle scores with Rajashekarappa.

While the ruling quashed Murthy's application and barred him from knowing the required details, it has left bigger questions on the nature of the curbs on the RTI Act.

Courtesy_
Citizen Matters: Bangalore News, Views & Opinions
Right to Information Act, 2005: RTI not for assets, liabilities of officials: HC

[rajub]

Thus Murthy was asked to pay a penalty of total Rs.10,000, with Rs.5000 due in three months from the ruling, and his application was declared canceled.
 

Extremely hazardous decision for info seekers !

This will be extensively used by PAs to browbeat the infoseekers I guess.

[agre47]

Any public servant has to furnish his liability and assets statement once in 5 years as per government servants conduct rules.if the court declares that personal matters like liabilities and assets of a public servant should not be insisted by the government servants conduct rules.Mr.murthi would have saught the information if the officer would have amazed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income.the ruling of court made the RTI ineffective for the public to feel the trasperancy of administration and defeated the very objective of the Central Act.

[sidmis]

I am reproducing here parts of the Karnataka High Court decision imposing cost for seeking information on assets of officials.
This was posted by Sh. B.H. VEERESHA of MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA, Karnataka in Hum Janenge.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
H.E.RAJASHEKARAPPA VS. STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & OTHERS

ORDER

Dr.Bhakthavatsala, J.

The petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 30..6.2006 at Annexure-G.

The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under:

The Respondent No.3 who is a retired Statistical Inspector made an application dt.17.3.2006 (Annexure B) to the Ist Respondent to furnish copy of Assets and Liabilities statement of the petitioner for the period 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The petitioner filed his objections to the application. The Respondent No.1 considering the statement of objections filed by the petitioner, rejectged the application by an order at Annexure "E". Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Section 19(8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Respondent No.2/Appellate Authority. The respondent No.2/Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to furnish the details sought for by the Respondent No.3. Therfore, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the impugned order at Annexure"G" on the file of Respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for th epetitioner submkts that the Respondent No.3 had no locus standi to seek the details of petitioners Assets & Liabilities statement and the personal information of the petitioner sought for is not pertaining to public affair of the public authority. But, the Respondent No.2/Appellate Authority errred in setting aside the order made by Respondent No.1 and directing the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the Respondent No.3.

4. It is necessary to refer and expert Section 2(f),(h), (j) and Section of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, The Act).

xxxxxx

Para No.5:

The object of the Act is to provide right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In view of the above provisions excerpted, it can not be said that Section 2(f) of the Act encompasses the personal information of the officials of the public authority. The intention of the legislation is to provide right to information to a citizen pertaining to public affairs of the public authority. Therefore, the respondent No.3 haed no right under the Act to seek personal information of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 /appellant authority has erred in directing the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for the by the respondent No.3 . As the respondent's application is vexatious and it is an attempt made to settle scores with the petitioner, it is a fit case to impose heavy costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.3.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with cost s of Rs.10000/- in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.3. The impugned order dated 30.6.2006 at Annexure-G is quashed. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit cost s of Rs.5000/- in this Court within three months from today.
-------------------------------------------------
B.H. VEERESHA
MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA
54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040
TEL.NO. Nine Four Four 8704693
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Rajendra Bakre mentioned above "Extremely hazardous decision for info seekers."

[navdeep]

I think Mr. Murthy must move Supreme Court as Central Information Commission have already declared IPRs (Immovable Property Return) as public documents.

[taurus]

I dont think any Government servant files an assets and liabilities statement with the employer. Only a statement of movable and immovable properties is filed. Thus it shows only the assets portion. The liabilities portion is not filed. As such the PA may not be having such an information. That is why the appellate authority must have asked the employee for the info, which act is clearly not in order as far as RTI act is concerned. If we look at the judgment from this angle, there is nothing wrong in the judgment. It is in tune with the RTI Act. A clear picture will emerge only if the full judgment is read. We should not react in haste reading parts of a judgment.

[snkmoorthy]

a balanced judgment which will curb overenthusiasm and attempts to pry into personal matters. if amassing of wealth disproportionate to known sources of income is suspected, there are other agencies which may be addressed.