Prevention against malafide destruction of records

[vsprajan]

1. Often it happens that the PIO does not provide certain records for unjustifiable reasons, and the FAA upholds the decision of the PIO.

2. The applicant files a second appeal before the commission so that the records could be provided.

3. In the meantime, the officials under the public authority, being aware that the time for hearing will come around 1 year, in the meantime destroys the records which could be provided under RTI, but becomes embarrassing / incriminating for the public authority to disclose the contents.

4. Under these conditions, the RTI applicant is helpless, in the matter of obtaining information even after going through the second appeal.

5. In this connection, I hereby attach the decision of the Supreme court as well as the decision of the armed forces tribunal, principal bench, which deal with this issue.

6. The apex court in Union of India & Anr.v.Ex. Major Sudershan Gupta, Para.2, has held that when a matter was subjudice in a court, the connected records are to be preserved till the final decision in the case.

7. Also, the decision of the Armed forces tribunal, Principal Bench, in Para.19 in HARISH CHANDRA JOSHI ...... APPLICANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, it is mentioned that "in the matter of “Hav Bhagmal Vs Union of India & Ors.”, has provided compensation to the applicant for the unwarranted / unjustified loss of records by the respondents."

The decisions mentioned in (6) & (7) are attached to this post.

8. Having said this, and armed with this decisions, the procedure is to be followed by the applicant is to bring to cognizance of the head of the public authority by a letter through speed / registered post , that a second appeal is filed before the information commission, and hence the connected records should not be destroyed.

9. The letter should mention the decisions cited in (6) & (7) and further mention that any destruction of records connected to the appeal after the receipt of such letter will amount to destruction of records with malafide intentions and penalty proceedings will be initiated.

10. The above mentioned step will act as a sufficient warning to the public authority not to destroy incriminating / embarrassing records but which could otherwise be provided under RTI act.

The two decisions are attached to this post.

11. Further, when the public authority is under Central government, the following RTI application framed based on the Public Records Act, and the rules will be of additional benefit.

12. It is also attached to this post.

13. The RTI application framed based on the Public records act is obtained from http://blogs.rediff.com/backfoot/201...o-expose-lies/

[vsprajan]

Sponsorer

In addition to the procedure described in my previous post, additionally, the concerned RTI applicant can file an application to obtain the copy of the rules framed by the competent authority, based on Section 3 of the Destruction of Records Act, 1917, and enforced in the concerned public authority. This procedure is useful in those states, where there is no state level public records act.

[vinayakj]

When a rti applicant writes application he hardly knows what records exactly are in with PA, so he write generic queries
PA / PIO will say section 8 ( pio never classify what records are u/s 8 -- pio replies to generic queries )
FA more or less abides by pio
IC will take 1/2/3 years to hear second appeal by that time PA has destroyed records
now if at all applicant gives in some form of information / notice to PA regarding SA , here again he/she will not classify what records ???

I have expressed more in this thread
Record Retention Schedule for Central Government

so the end result is NO info NO penalty I have come across and experienced incumbent PIO says predecessor has done something he should not be accounted for that-- CIC put this in order PIO walks smiling and NO penalty or even stricture

[karira]

When a rti applicant writes application he hardly knows what records exactly are in with PA, so he write generic queries

That is why the RTI Act has a Sec 4(1)(a):

4.

1.	Every public authority shall—

a.

maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;

If this was done, the PIOs job would be very easy !
No organisation/department/ministry has done indexing or cataloguing of records.

[vinayakj]

ideal thing will be if PIO sites section 8 immediately file another RTI app to known what records were considered u/s 8 and give a list of records 4(1)(a)