Reported by Dnaindia.com on Jul 20, 2012
Finally GIC submits first 3 reports to assembly - India - DNA

Finally Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) submitted its three reports of years 2005-06, 06-07 and 07-08, in the house during the last session of the 12th Gujarat Assembly on Thursday.

While RTI activists may consider this as ‘too late & too little’, some others may say, ‘better late than never’!

GIC is the apex body for ensuring implementation of the Right to Information Act in the state.

Though these reports are too old, as much water has flowed down the Sabarmati since then, these are the only available reports, which may throw some light on the status of implementation of the act in the state.

When the reports were tabled by the minister in-charge of state General Administration Department (GAD) Vajubhai Vala, leader of the opposition Shaktisinh Gohil raised a ‘point of order’ asking the reason for its delay.

“As per the RTI act, it is mandatory for the state information commission to submit its report every year without delay,” Gohil said, adding “Why has it taken nearly seven years to submit three reports?”

Vala replied in the house that the government would ensure regular submission of the reports by the GIC.

The first report of 2005 comprising nearly 90 pages seems thicker than the reports of subsequent years.

However, it doesn’t have much information except the first 15 pages. The remaining pages of the report are filled with various forms and formats and accounting manuals.

The reports of following year, i.e., for year 2006-07 and 2007-08 have only 20 and 22 pages, respectively.

Commenting on the reports, RTI activist Harinesh Pandya, founder member of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel said, “GIC is supposed to submit their reports every year. If they have failed to do so, it is because of non-sharing of RTI-related information by other state government departments. This shows that GAD has no control over its administration for the implementation RTI Act.”

Pandya further said that as per the sections 25 and 26 of RTI Act, the report should also have the account of activities done by the state government for public awareness and training about the Act.

“The report should also have data collection, quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data, apart from the summary.

If the reports have only 15 pages of graphs, charts and tables, GIC should not have taken 7 long years to compile such data. This shows how serious the state government is for the implementation of the Act.