2851 complaints pending with JKSIC

A total of 2851 appeals and complaints are pending with Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission (JKSIC), a study reveals.

New Delhi-based Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), which is mandated to ensure the practical realization of human rights in Commonwealth countries, in a study, ‘The State of Information Commissions and the Use of RTI Laws in India’ reveals that 2851 appeals and complaints were pending with JKSIC.

The research and report by Venkatesh Nayak also states that J&K SIC imposed penalties worth Rs 1.44 lakh in 7 cases in 2012-13.

The 86-page CHRI report on the state of information commissions and use of RTI laws across India states that according to Section 22 (2) of the J&K RTI Act, the duty of ensuring reporting of RTI returns from all public authorities lies squarely on the concerned ministries.

“Unless they apply pressure on public authorities under their jurisdiction they will not fall in line to submit RTI returns in a timely manner,” the report says. “They must insist filing of RTI returns at least every quarter and the nodal department charged with ensuring implementation of RTI law under each appropriate government, must send frequent reminders to the other ministries and department to do their mandated job.”

The CHRI had included JKSIC in this study even though it was established by a separate law passed by the J&K state legislature.

The J&K RTI Act permits the establishment of a three-member JKSIC and it continues to be headed by a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service.

The CHRI report, which is based on the annual reports of Information Commissions between 2012 and 2014,  states that Section 11(3)(c) and (4) of the J&K RTI Act make ‘engagement in paid employment outside of office’ a ground for removal of Information Commissioners, without making a reference to the Supreme Court to inquire into the matter.

“Therefore, in order to uphold personal integrity and the institutional integrity of the Information Commissions, some Information Commissioners have begun the practice of publicly declaring their assets and liabilities,” the report says.

The CHRI report states that Section 21 of the J&K RTI Act requires JKSIC to submit a similar annual report to the State legislature through the State government.

It says that though SICs have set up online-systems for receiving implementation reports from public authorities every quarter directly and display their annual reports on their website after they are tabled before the concerned legislature, their compliance with these statutory requirements has been poor, year after year.

“In J&K, the RTI rules framed by the State government in 2010 authorized the JKSIC to place its decisions on a website but those rules were replaced in 2012 with a minimalistic set of rules which do not contain such a requirement,” the CHRI report states. The report also called on the information commissions to make the text of the RTI laws available in the local official languages of the State.

The J&K RTI Act has not been translated into Urdu, the official language of the State.

“Section 22 of the J&K RTI Act require the respective governments to prepare and disseminate user guides in the local language to educate citizens about their rights under these laws, with particular emphasis on members of the disadvantaged segments of society,” CHRI report says. “However, ten years of implementation of the Central RTI Act should be adequate time for the States to ensure that local language translations of the law are available.”

The CHRI report expressed dissatisfaction over the use of RTI in Jammu Kashmir.

“Despite a decade of the Central RTI Act being in existence and the J&K RTI Act being in existence for more than five years, the proportion of RTI users has not risen to even 0.5 percent of the population or even 1 percent of the electorate,” it said.

The CHRI report says that number of RTI applicants in J&K increased 127 percent in 2012-13 compared to the previous year – the highest amongst all States which have reported their RTI statistics for the period 2012-13.

“This development augurs well for a State which is conflict-ridden for a very long period of time demonstrating the faith of people in constitutional and democratic methods of holding the public authorities accountable for their actions,” the report says. It states that Section 21(3)(a) of the J&K RTI Act obligates every public authority to submit to its parent ministry or department, an annual report of the total number of requests received.

CHRI report says security and intelligence organizations notified by the Government of India and State governments do not have a duty to disclose any information other than that pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

“Information relating to allegations of human rights violations may be disclosed only with the approval of the concerned Information Commission,” the report states. “Section 25(3)(b) of the Central RTI Act and the corresponding section 22(3)(b) in the J&K RTI Act require public authorities to cite the number of instances in which they invoked the exemptions to reject information requests.”

The CHRI report says that under Section 16(3) of the J&K RTI Act, citizens may file a second appeal with the concerned Information Commission if they are aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate authorities.

The report states that under Section 17(1) of the J&K RTI Act, an Information Commission may impose a penalty on the public information officer from Rs 250 per day to a maximum of Rs 25000 for refusing to receive an RTI application or delaying the furnishing of information without reasonable cause; malafidely denying access to information, knowingly giving incomplete, false or misleading information; destroying information that is the subject matter of a pending RTI application or obstructing the furnishing of information in any manner.

The CHRI report says that the Information Commissions are also empowered to recommend disciplinary action against a public information officer who repeatedly contravenes the provisions of the RTI laws.

“The Information Commissions are also empowered to award compensation to an appellant or complainant who has suffered any loss or detriment on account of wrongful denial of information,” it states.

The CHRI report states that anecdotal evidence indicates that Information Commissions were reluctant to impose penalties or recommend disciplinary action against public information officers.

“Most of the Information Commissioners who were career bureaucrats before joining the Information Commission are perceived to adopt a very lenient attitude toward public information officers who do not comply with their obligations under the RTI laws,” it states.

Besides, Venkatesh Nayak, the CHRI research team included General Editor Maja Daruwala and Seema Choudhary, Saine Paul, Rupa Bhattacharya, Varun Chopra and Dolvi Oswal.