In pursuit of establishing an Intellectual Poperty Academy in Kerala, we pursued the RTI endeavor with a fresh demand for inspectingthe File No. 20311/Nodal(1)/08/Law, which was stated to be under different levels of deliberations. It is an interesting story altogether.
My friend, Mr. Prasanth (Blogger of SECULAR CITIZEN) filed his RTI Request on 29/06/09with the following contents.
“With reference to the Letter No. 10508/Nodal 1/09/Law dated 24.06.2009, I may please be permitted to exercise my right under Section 2(j) of RTI Act to inspect the File No. 20311/Nodal(1)/08/Law for the purpose of taking notes, extracts or certified copies of relevant documents or records (including file notes), that are not exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) of RTI Act. Please inform me a suitable date on which I can inspect the File.
You may kindly see the decision of State Information Commission in a similiar case
All the papers essentially identified and marked as “CABINET PAPERS” or any CABINET NOTE under Section 8(1)(i) may be withheld from inspection”.
He was expecting an early call from Law Department, inviting him to inspect the file. However PIO of Law Department vide letter No. 11478/Nodal I/09/Law dated 09.07.2009 denied the request stating that his demand for inspection of file could not be considered favorably since the information sought for is not accessible under Section 8(1)(i) of the Act. The Department once again cited the reason that the proposals are under different levels of deliberations. It is an oxymoron that the Government authorities treat RTI Request as a favour being sought. Further PIO failed to provide the reasons for applying Section 8(1)(i) on the ‘whole file content’.
But Mr. Prasanth was not in a mood to give up. He preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority in Law Department, Govt. of Kerala on 13.07.09 under Section 19(1) of RTI Act, seeking a “speaking order”, either allowing him to access the information requested, or by providing the logic behind applying Section 8(1)(i) by PIO.
It took hardly a fortnight for him to realise that the bureaucracy was not lenient enough to abide by the principles of ‘Freedom of Information’. The reply from the Appellate Authority was very disappointing. Vide Letter No. 12462/Nodal I/09/Law dated 27/07/2009, the Appellate Authority turned down the scope of a “speaking order” positing that the decision of PIO did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting a speaking order as requested.
It is the second instance at which the Law Department makes the deliberate attempt to conceal the information on the IPR Academy. Earlier, the Appellate Authority had just conceded to provide the information that the IPR Academy details are available at vide File No. 20311/Nodal(1)/08/Law, in an RTI process initiated to avail the following the information.
i) Aims/Mandates of the IPR Academy
ii) Reasons for proposing an IPR Academy (To know whether it is essential for Kerala)
iii) Proposed budget, proposed location and proposed area of the CAMPUS for the IPR Academy
iv) Constitutional details of the proposed IPR Academy including the functions of councils/committees (if any), faculty and Infrastructure.
v) The progress report and the latest status on setting up the IPR Academy.
Mr. Prasanth did not pursue the matter to the State Information Commission then. But he is very determined this time. A judicial process before the Commission is on the cards.
After all, why a “public authority” should “feel offended” when questions are asked to ensure the “accountability” to the “governed”? Is it that the“governed” (the masters in “Democracy”) have no right to question the “governing authority”? How will the “accountability” be ensured otherwise?
I’m of the opinion that this “attitude” of the “bureaucratic” set up would derail the “accountability” of the governmental system and the wisdom of parliamentarians in enacting the RTI Act. Success of RTI Act demands change in attitude of the public authorities.
