RIGHT TO INFORMATION (r2i)

Once an investigation is completed and B-Report is filed by the police, there is no prohibition on giving information about the same under the Right To Information Act:

Decision:

• By an impugned order, the State Information Commissioner had directed the Public Information Officer and Director-General of Police to hand over and furnish the B-Report and the enclosures which were sought by Sri Malleshappa M. Chikkeri.

• Mr. Chikkeri’s son had supposedly ended his life by jumping out from a window and it was stated by the authorities that he had died due to excess drinking and a B-Report was submitted in the court. Mr. Chikkeri had sought information regarding the B-Report (which is drawn when the allegations are found to be false or no evidence is found after the completion of investigation), contending that a stigma was attached to his family by the B-Report stating that his son had lost his life due to excessive drinking.

• During the second appeal, the Commissioner had noticed that there was no prohibition to give the information sought because the investigation was already completed. He noted that only in the event that a matter was under investigation was there a bar for grant of information regarding the investigation.

• A writ petition challenging the order passed by the Information Commissioner was filed by the Public Information Officer and Director-General of Police… the First Appellate Authority and Police UPA Mahanirkshakaru with the High Court of Karnataka.

• The Court decided that the Commissioner was absolutely justified in directing the furnishing of the B-Report and its enclosures as sought by Mr. Chikkeri, especially when the investigation in the matter had been concluded.

• The learned counsel for the petitioners were of the opinion that it was open for Mr. Chikkeri to secure the B-Report and enclosures from the Magistrate and there can be no ground to deny the information sought under RTI. Therefore, no grounds are made out to entertain the petition and accordingly the petition was dismissed.

On 20th September, 2021, in one of the rarest of rare cases, an arrest warrant was issued by Mr. Rahul Singh, the Information Commissioner (IC) of Madhya Pradesh (PIO), against Dr. Vikram Singh Verma, the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) of Burhanpur district, who is also the Public Information Officer. Mr Singh was irritated by the PIO’s four-year-long disobedience and non-compliance with the State Information Commission’s (SIC) instructions. Dr. Verma had previously been
issued a show cause notice in which he was asked to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The SIC had also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on him in December, 2020.

Is it possible for the SIC to arrest a PIO for non-compliance? Mr. Singh’s order, most likely anticipating this question, cites specific rules from the Central RTI Act and Madhya Pradesh’s rules to support his action. They are as follows:

• If the PIO violates section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 by failing to provide information within 30 days of the RTI application, a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, up to a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000, shall be imposed on the guilty PIO u/s 20 of the Act. The amount is expected to be deposited with the SIC by the PIO.

• Pursuant to Rule 8(6)(3)(i) of the MP RTI (Fees and Appeal) Rules, 2005, the PIO is required to deposit the imposed penalty with the SIC within one month of receiving the SIC’s penalty order.

• According to Rule 8(6)(iii) of the MP RTI (Fees and Appeal) Rules, if the PIO fails to deposit the imposed penalty amount within the prescribed time limit, the SIC shall report to the disciplinary authority concerned in order to take disciplinary action and ensure recovery of the penalty amount against the PIO.

• According to section 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act, the Commission has the authority required by a public authority to take any steps necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act. The order of the SIC is binding on the officer concerned according to Rule 8(4) and section 19(7) of the RTI Act.

As a result, State IC Rahul Singh issued an arrest warrant in accordance with Order XVI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and section 18(3) of the RTI Act. He directed the Indore division’s Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) to execute the warrant to secure Dr. Vikram Singh’s personal attendance before the SIC at 12 pm on 5th October 5, 2021 in his Court.

The first arrest warrant against a PIO was issued by the Information Commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh in 2009.

• Over 2.5 lakh RTI appeals, plaints pending with 26 Information Commissions across India

In this 16th year of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI), the only thing that continues to cripple its effectiveness is the pitiful performance of the Information Commissioners (IC), which is reflected in the backlog of second appeals and complaints. To date, 2.56 lakh appeals and complaints are pending in the 26 Information Committees. This is a serious matter because the Information Commissions established at the Central and State level are the ultimate appellate authority and have a mandate to protect and facilitate the fundamental right to information.

This distressing disclosure of information was compiled in the ‘Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, 2021’. The research was conducted by Satark Nagrik Sanghatan, a group of citizens working for transparency. The report primarily analyses information accessed under the RTI Act by 29 Information Boards across India. To obtain this information, a total of 156 RTI requests were filed with the National and Central Information Commissions. In addition, information was also found in the websites and annual reports of the Information Committees.

• Two officials fined for not providing information under RTI Act

Two officials attached to the Department of Rural Development, Thoothukudi, have been fined Rs. 25,000 each for not providing information on queries filed under the Right to Information Act even after the second appeal.

The Information Commission, which was conducting a district-level inquiry on second appeals for the past three years, had received over 9,000 second appeal petitions, including 30 petitions from Thoothukudi district.

• Mahiti Kanaja, an endeavour to enhance Right to Information

In Karnataka, Mahiti Kanaja is a single unified portal for all departments which will disclose information related to the status of implementation of Government schemes / public expenditures, etc., on a real-time basis in a user-friendly format down to the GP / ward level. This is on the lines of the ‘Jan Soochna Portal’ initiated in Rajasthan. The information will be provided to the public free of all ‘log-ins’ and passwords, enabling genuine ‘freedom of information’. As in Rajasthan, a ‘Digital Dialogue’ has been initiated by DPAR-Egov, facilitated by the Social Accountability Forum for Action and Research (SAFAR), with a host of civil society organisations and across various departments to revise Mahiti Kanaja from the citizens’ perspective.1

1   https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/panorama/mahiti-kanaja-an-endeavour-to-enhance-right-to-information-1041507.html