Functioning of Odisha
Information Commission- An RTI-based Monitoring Report
Information Commission- An RTI-based Monitoring Report
Indolent and shallow neophytes in the posts of
Information Commissioner- a grave threat
to RTI regime in Odisha: An expose
through RTI disclosures
Information Commissioner- a grave threat
to RTI regime in Odisha: An expose
through RTI disclosures
Dear friends,
The
RTI Act, being implemented since 2005 is the sun-shine law which empowers the common people to
access information held under public authorities by enforcing transparency and
accountability in the administration,
and thereby containing corruption. The Act provides for constitution of Information
Commission in the state ( Section 15 and 16), which is obligated to hear and adjudicate Complaints and Second Appeals to ensure
supply of information to the aggrieved
appellants/ complainants, to impose penalty and recommend disciplinary
proceedings against the erring PIOs ( Section-20) and award compensation to the detrimented citizens {Section 19(8)(b)}.
The primary work of the Commission is to adjudicate the cases as
expeditiously as possible, so that
the aggrieved citizens will
get justice in time.
If the cases stay pending for disposal in the office of Commission for years
together, it leads to frustration
among Information-seekers by impeding their right to obtain information in
time and thereby ultimately
destroys RTI Act in the long run.
RTI Act, being implemented since 2005 is the sun-shine law which empowers the common people to
access information held under public authorities by enforcing transparency and
accountability in the administration,
and thereby containing corruption. The Act provides for constitution of Information
Commission in the state ( Section 15 and 16), which is obligated to hear and adjudicate Complaints and Second Appeals to ensure
supply of information to the aggrieved
appellants/ complainants, to impose penalty and recommend disciplinary
proceedings against the erring PIOs ( Section-20) and award compensation to the detrimented citizens {Section 19(8)(b)}.
The primary work of the Commission is to adjudicate the cases as
expeditiously as possible, so that
the aggrieved citizens will
get justice in time.
If the cases stay pending for disposal in the office of Commission for years
together, it leads to frustration
among Information-seekers by impeding their right to obtain information in
time and thereby ultimately
destroys RTI Act in the long run.
Pendency
of the cases is attributable to failure of Information Commission in
ensuring quick disposal of the cases. The inefficient and
inexperienced Information Commissioners who are appointed out of considerations for political rehabilitation or for their nexus
with corrupt bureaucracy, could not hear or dispose the cases timely or
effectively. Despite a hefty salary and
multiple allowances amounting to Rs.
2.80 lakh per month to their credit,
the Information
Commissioners could not
dispose the cases timely and
thereby became themselves instrumental in rising pendency of cases.
Approximately it takes 3 to 4
years for disposal of cases
by these lazy and lethargic Information Commissioners. Odisha Information Commissioners are the brightest example of this malaise and this very truth has been exposed through RTI
exercises.
of the cases is attributable to failure of Information Commission in
ensuring quick disposal of the cases. The inefficient and
inexperienced Information Commissioners who are appointed out of considerations for political rehabilitation or for their nexus
with corrupt bureaucracy, could not hear or dispose the cases timely or
effectively. Despite a hefty salary and
multiple allowances amounting to Rs.
2.80 lakh per month to their credit,
the Information
Commissioners could not
dispose the cases timely and
thereby became themselves instrumental in rising pendency of cases.
Approximately it takes 3 to 4
years for disposal of cases
by these lazy and lethargic Information Commissioners. Odisha Information Commissioners are the brightest example of this malaise and this very truth has been exposed through RTI
exercises.
On
19.11.19., Sri Santosh Mohanty, a Retired Head Master, Advocate and RTI Activist
of Mayurbhanj district had filed RTI
Application to the PIO of Odisha
Information Commission seeking details of Complaint and Second Appeal cases heard and disposed by the State Chief Information Commissioner ( SCIC ) and
two Odisha Information Commissioners( SICs),
penalty imposed on erring PIOs, Disciplinary proceedings recommended, compensation awarded during the period of 3
years, from Nov. 2016 to October,2019.
19.11.19., Sri Santosh Mohanty, a Retired Head Master, Advocate and RTI Activist
of Mayurbhanj district had filed RTI
Application to the PIO of Odisha
Information Commission seeking details of Complaint and Second Appeal cases heard and disposed by the State Chief Information Commissioner ( SCIC ) and
two Odisha Information Commissioners( SICs),
penalty imposed on erring PIOs, Disciplinary proceedings recommended, compensation awarded during the period of 3
years, from Nov. 2016 to October,2019.
On
25.11.19., the PIO supplied the
requested information, a detailed analysis of
which as presented below shall bring
home as to why RTI is badly implemented in our state and pendency of cases runs for 3 to 4 years awaiting disposal.
25.11.19., the PIO supplied the
requested information, a detailed analysis of
which as presented below shall bring
home as to why RTI is badly implemented in our state and pendency of cases runs for 3 to 4 years awaiting disposal.
1.
No. of days devoted
for hearing of the cases by SCIC and SIC-
No. of days devoted
for hearing of the cases by SCIC and SIC-
An
RTI query was made to ascertain how many days in a month are really devoted to
hearing of the cases ( Complaints
and Second Appeals) by the Commission during
last three years ( Nov. 16 to October,19) .
RTI query was made to ascertain how many days in a month are really devoted to
hearing of the cases ( Complaints
and Second Appeals) by the Commission during
last three years ( Nov. 16 to October,19) .
|
Year
|
Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC
|
Mrs. Sashiprava Bindhani, SIC
|
Mr. L.N.Patnaik, SIC
|
Remarks
|
|
2016
( Nov.& Dec.) |
26
|
30
|
29
|
|
|
2017
( 12 months) |
180
|
189
|
196
|
|
|
2018
( 12 months) |
189
|
185
|
186
|
|
|
2019
( upto Oct.) |
130
|
147
|
34
( from Jan. to May) |
Sri Patnaik got retired in
May 2019. As he remained ill for months together, could not hear the cases |
|
Total Nos. of days devoted (
during 3 years) |
525
|
551
|
445
|
|
|
Days devoted for hearing of the cases per month
|
15 days
|
15 days
|
14 days
|
|
·
SCIC and each SIC devoted around 15 days a
month for hearing of the cases.
SCIC and each SIC devoted around 15 days a
month for hearing of the cases.
2.Complaint cases
under Section 18 heard and
disposed by SCIC and two SICs
under Section 18 heard and
disposed by SCIC and two SICs
As per
Section 18 of the RTI Act, an RTI
user being aggrieved by
systemic malfeasance leading to denial of information or supply of false , incomplete and misleading
information or any obstruction in accessing information may
file a complaint directly before
the Information Commission for enquiring and remedying the same. The
Information Commission is to hear and
adjudicate the complaint cases and may require the public authority to
compensate the detrimented complainant and may also impose penalty on any
erring PIO or deemed PIO as required under Clauses (b) and (c ) respectively of
Section 19(8) RTI Act.
Section 18 of the RTI Act, an RTI
user being aggrieved by
systemic malfeasance leading to denial of information or supply of false , incomplete and misleading
information or any obstruction in accessing information may
file a complaint directly before
the Information Commission for enquiring and remedying the same. The
Information Commission is to hear and
adjudicate the complaint cases and may require the public authority to
compensate the detrimented complainant and may also impose penalty on any
erring PIO or deemed PIO as required under Clauses (b) and (c ) respectively of
Section 19(8) RTI Act.
|
|
Sri
Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC |
Sashiprava
Bindhani, SIC |
Sri
L.N.Patnaik, SIC |
Remarks
|
|||
|
Year
|
Complaint
cases heard |
Complain
cases disposed |
Complaint
cases heard |
Complain
cases disposed |
Complaint
cases heard |
Complain
cases disposed |
|
|
2016
( Nov. and Dec.) |
66
|
29
|
12
|
10
|
29
|
8
|
|
|
2017
|
466
|
80
|
316
|
114
|
470
|
87
|
|
|
2018
|
429
|
169
|
311
|
150
|
552
|
99
|
|
|
2019
( upto Oct. ) |
416
|
134
|
275
|
80
|
126
|
13
|
L.N.Patnak
retired in May, 2019 |
|
Total
|
1377
|
412
|
914
|
354
|
1177
|
207
|
|
3.
Second Appeal cases Heard and Disposed by SCIC
and two SICs
Second Appeal cases Heard and Disposed by SCIC
and two SICs
As
per the Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act,
in case the appellant is aggrieved
with order of First Appellate Authority,
he or she will file
a Second Appeal before Odisha
Information Commission for getting undone the injustice done to him.
Quick and proper disposal of such 2nd Appeal cases by the Commission is crucial for
maintaining the faith of the public in the RTI regime of the state.. Here are the
figures relating to SA cases disposed by SCIC and SIC during last 3 years.
per the Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act,
in case the appellant is aggrieved
with order of First Appellate Authority,
he or she will file
a Second Appeal before Odisha
Information Commission for getting undone the injustice done to him.
Quick and proper disposal of such 2nd Appeal cases by the Commission is crucial for
maintaining the faith of the public in the RTI regime of the state.. Here are the
figures relating to SA cases disposed by SCIC and SIC during last 3 years.
|
|
Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC
|
SashipravaBindhani
|
Sri L.N.Patnaik
|
Remarks
|
|||
|
Year
|
Second
Appeal cases heard |
SA Cases disposed
|
SA
cases heard |
SA
cases disposed |
SA cases heard
|
SA cases
disposed |
|
|
2016
( Nov. and Dec.) |
350
|
174
|
359
|
71
|
311
|
129
|
|
|
2017
|
3030
|
892
|
2995
|
704
|
2484
|
774
|
|
|
2018
|
2929
|
1057
|
2845
|
768
|
2417
|
665
|
|
|
2019
( upto Oct. ) |
2541
|
837
|
2334
|
434
|
535
|
108
|
L.
N. Patnak retired in May, 2019 |
|
Total
|
8850
|
2960
|
8533
|
1977
|
5747
|
1676
|
|
Findings:
·
Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC performs well
in comparison with other two Information Commissioners in the matter of hearing and disposal of Complaint
and SA cases.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC performs well
in comparison with other two Information Commissioners in the matter of hearing and disposal of Complaint
and SA cases.
·
Within 3 years,
while Sri Mishra , SCIC disposed 3372 nos. of Complaint and SA cases ( 2960+412),
Smt. Sashiprava Bindhani SIC disposed 2331 cases
( 1977 +354), around 1000 less than the
disposal figures of SCIC. Sri L.N.Patnaik, former District Judge appointed as Information Commissioner who got retired in May, 2019 had disposed 1883 nos. of cases ( 1676+207).
Within 3 years,
while Sri Mishra , SCIC disposed 3372 nos. of Complaint and SA cases ( 2960+412),
Smt. Sashiprava Bindhani SIC disposed 2331 cases
( 1977 +354), around 1000 less than the
disposal figures of SCIC. Sri L.N.Patnaik, former District Judge appointed as Information Commissioner who got retired in May, 2019 had disposed 1883 nos. of cases ( 1676+207).
·
As to the monthly rate of disposal of cases ,
it is found that Sri Mishra, SCIC disposed 93 cases, whereas Smt. Bindhani disposes only 64 cases , which is
incidentally equal to the rate of disposal by Sri Jagadanand
Mohanty, former SIC ( from 2008 to 2013). Even though both hailed from
civil society background. They performed very badly.
As to the monthly rate of disposal of cases ,
it is found that Sri Mishra, SCIC disposed 93 cases, whereas Smt. Bindhani disposes only 64 cases , which is
incidentally equal to the rate of disposal by Sri Jagadanand
Mohanty, former SIC ( from 2008 to 2013). Even though both hailed from
civil society background. They performed very badly.
·
Number of Cases
fixed for per day hearing by Information Commission is also not encouraging. While
Sri Mishra, SCIC fixed on an average 18 cases per day, Smt. Bindhani, SIC only 17 cases
and Sri L.N.Patnaik only 15 cases per day. It needs to be recalled, Sri Jagadanad
Mohanty , former SIC was hearing only 12 to 15 cases per day. The performance of State Information Commissioners in
respect of quantum of cases heard by them has not improved over the years and
it is the biggest hurdle to provide quick justice to the Information-seekers.
Number of Cases
fixed for per day hearing by Information Commission is also not encouraging. While
Sri Mishra, SCIC fixed on an average 18 cases per day, Smt. Bindhani, SIC only 17 cases
and Sri L.N.Patnaik only 15 cases per day. It needs to be recalled, Sri Jagadanad
Mohanty , former SIC was hearing only 12 to 15 cases per day. The performance of State Information Commissioners in
respect of quantum of cases heard by them has not improved over the years and
it is the biggest hurdle to provide quick justice to the Information-seekers.
4.
Penalty
Penalty
As per section 20 of the RTI Act, the Information
Commission is empowered to impose penalty on erring PIOs and deemed PIOs for
mala fide denial of information or supply of false, deficient or misleading
information or destruction of information or obstructing the access to
information. Besides, The Commission can also recommend to the concerned public
authorities imposition of disciplinary proceedings against the erring PIOs and
deemed PIOs, who are found to be persistent violators of RTI Act. Needless to
say, imposition of penalty acts as a deterrent to carelessness on the part of
the PIOs in dealing with RTI requests.
As persistent denial of information by the PIOs has become the order of
the day in Odisha, it is expected from the Information Commission to impose
penalty, without fear or favour, on such erring PIOs who are guilty of flagrant
violation of RTI Act. It goes without
saying that, in absence of penalty against such recalcitrant PIOs, they will
persist in their denial mode towards RTI requests, leading ultimately to
pilling and pendency of cases in the Commission. Such an ominous trend is bound
to jeopardize the whole RTI regime running at a massive cost to the public
exchequer.
Commission is empowered to impose penalty on erring PIOs and deemed PIOs for
mala fide denial of information or supply of false, deficient or misleading
information or destruction of information or obstructing the access to
information. Besides, The Commission can also recommend to the concerned public
authorities imposition of disciplinary proceedings against the erring PIOs and
deemed PIOs, who are found to be persistent violators of RTI Act. Needless to
say, imposition of penalty acts as a deterrent to carelessness on the part of
the PIOs in dealing with RTI requests.
As persistent denial of information by the PIOs has become the order of
the day in Odisha, it is expected from the Information Commission to impose
penalty, without fear or favour, on such erring PIOs who are guilty of flagrant
violation of RTI Act. It goes without
saying that, in absence of penalty against such recalcitrant PIOs, they will
persist in their denial mode towards RTI requests, leading ultimately to
pilling and pendency of cases in the Commission. Such an ominous trend is bound
to jeopardize the whole RTI regime running at a massive cost to the public
exchequer.
As to the figures of cases in which te SCIC and both
SICs of Odisha Information Commission imposed penalty the the scenario is a despairing
one. Figures of penalty imposed by SCIC
and SICs within
last 3 years are as follows:-
SICs of Odisha Information Commission imposed penalty the the scenario is a despairing
one. Figures of penalty imposed by SCIC
and SICs within
last 3 years are as follows:-
·
Sri Sunil Kumar
Mishra, SCIC has imposed highest penalty
of Rs. 8,
54,500/- in 84 cases covering 114 persons.
Sri Sunil Kumar
Mishra, SCIC has imposed highest penalty
of Rs. 8,
54,500/- in 84 cases covering 114 persons.
·
Smt. Sashiprava
Bindhani, SIC imposed penalty in a minisule of only 5 cases (2016-Nil penalty, 2017- in
one case, 2018- in two cases and 2019- in two cases) amounting to a total of only Rs. 33,000/-. It
won’t be out of place to mention here that she tried her utmost to protect the erring PIOs and safeguard the corrupt officials and
thereby encouraged them to persist in their denial mode towards the information-seekers.
Smt. Sashiprava
Bindhani, SIC imposed penalty in a minisule of only 5 cases (2016-Nil penalty, 2017- in
one case, 2018- in two cases and 2019- in two cases) amounting to a total of only Rs. 33,000/-. It
won’t be out of place to mention here that she tried her utmost to protect the erring PIOs and safeguard the corrupt officials and
thereby encouraged them to persist in their denial mode towards the information-seekers.
·
Sri L. N.Patnaik,
SIC (retired now) had imposed penalty in only 29 cases, amounting to a total of Rs. 4, 16,502/- only.
Sri L. N.Patnaik,
SIC (retired now) had imposed penalty in only 29 cases, amounting to a total of Rs. 4, 16,502/- only.
·
Above all, it is disconcerting to know that
the Commission has never recommended any disciplinary proceedings as required
under Section 20(2) of RTI Act against any
erring PIO or deemed PIO within last 3 years.
the Commission has never recommended any disciplinary proceedings as required
under Section 20(2) of RTI Act against any
erring PIO or deemed PIO within last 3 years.
5.
Awarding
Compensation
Awarding
Compensation
As per
section 19 (8)(b) of RTI Act, the
Commission can award compensation payable by the concerned public authority to
any Complainant in case he or she has
physically or mentally suffered any detriment due to addressing a complaint to
the Commission. Within last 3 years, the Information Commission has not awarded
any compensation to any Complainant, though quite many of them have been
harassed, brutalized and even killed by the anti-social mafias in nexus with
corruptible public servants who are managing the RTI desks under the very nose
of the Government of the day.
section 19 (8)(b) of RTI Act, the
Commission can award compensation payable by the concerned public authority to
any Complainant in case he or she has
physically or mentally suffered any detriment due to addressing a complaint to
the Commission. Within last 3 years, the Information Commission has not awarded
any compensation to any Complainant, though quite many of them have been
harassed, brutalized and even killed by the anti-social mafias in nexus with
corruptible public servants who are managing the RTI desks under the very nose
of the Government of the day.
Santosh
Mohanty
Mohanty
Advocate and RTI Activist
M-
9337029395
9337029395
Date-
5.1.2020
5.1.2020
