By: Malik Jehangir
SRINAGAR: In a landmark judgment Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Y K Sinha has directed the office of Deputy Commissioner Baramulla to provide information to the people at the Sub Divisional level with the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) being the ultimate authority to dish out information on different matters related to public interest.
“Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission is of the view that although satisfactory information is provided to the Appellant, efforts should be made to create a robust mechanism for disclosing such information at the SDM level through internet either on the website of Deputy Commissioner Baramulla or through creation of separate websites for each sub division in the larger,” wrote the CIC in the order.
The CIC further wrote, “Suo motu disclosure of permissible information is an important facet of the RTI mechanism aimed to ensure that as much information is disclosed suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including the internet, so that the public need not resort to the filing of RTI applications.”
The CIC said that an open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realized only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. The CIC passed the order on an appeal of a Right to Information (RTI) applicant Naveed Bukhtiyar who had sought implementation of report of section 4 of RTI Act 2005 in the office of Deputy Commissioner Baramulla and Sub Division Office Uri.
The RTI applicant had sought details related to funds allotted to the office of Deputy Commissioner Baramulla for the year 2020-21 under different heads and schemes. He had sought Xerox copy of Income and Expenditure Certificate of Deputy Commissioner Baramulla for the year 2019-2020. He had asked for inspection of files and relevant documents under Section 2 (j) of RTI Act.
Having not received any information from CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 5-9-2019 and the same remained unheard. A reply dated 5-10-2020 sent by SDM Uri is available on the record of the Commission wherein it was mentioned that Section (4) is implemented by their office in letter and spirit.
It was also given out that from time to time vital information is suo motu disclosed in accordance with section 4 (1) (b) on the notice board in the gallery of the office of SDM Uri and a facebook page is active in the name of ‘Grievance Cell SDM Uri’. Feeling aggrieved over non-receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant second appeal.