08 December,2010 06:38 AM IST | | Sanjeev Devasia
RTI reply reveals that a state information commissioner slapped a penalty of a rupee on errant officials for blocking information
What do you think should be the fine for information officers denying information to citizens? Re 1, nothing more or less, according to a state information commissioner.
An RTI response sought by activist Vihar Durve in June 2010 revealed that Konkan Information Commissioner Navin Kumar imposed a penalty of Re 1 in two cases of appeals between 2005 and 2008 for stalling information.
Konkan Information Commissioner Navin Kumar
The first, imposed on July 5, 2008, was meant to 'penalise' a gram sevak, while the second, on July 8 the same year, was imposed on an assistant police commissioner of Thane.
The penalty, say RTI activists, is completely absurd and will not be a deterrent to erring officials or public information officers (PIOs) who malafide delay information sought by the common man or provide them incorrect information.
"It is absurd on the part of the information commissioner to impose a fine of just Re 1, when the minimum penalty is Rs 250 each day till the application is received or the information is furnished.
u00a0
Such penalties will be taken lightly and those officers who have malafide intentions will not be prompt in providing correct information," said Durve.
17,336 cases, only 146 penalties
In a separate RTI query filed by Durve, he sought an audit report of the state information commission, which reveals that the commission initiated departmental enquiry and levied penalty only in 146 cases of appeals and complaints out of a total of 17,336 cases filed with it between 12 October, 2005 and 30 November, 2008.
u00a0
"The audit report of the information commission prepared by the office of the principal accountant general specifically mentions that u00a017,190 cases were disposed off without any penal action. How can they be so lenient with officials who deny information?" Durve said.
State information commission's secretary Ravindra Bhagwat said, "I have been out of the office so I am not aware of the matter. Please ask someone else from the office about it."
The Other Side
Navin Kumar defended himself, saying, "According to our interpretation of the RTI Act, the discretion of how much penalty to impose on an official lies with the commission. Besides, how can we fine officers if they are genuinely busy, like being put on election duty or assigned other such work?
The penalty of Re 1 was just a token penalty as the officers in question had genuine reasons. Besides, even a rupee's fine can mean a lot to genuine and sincere officers. A good officer will feel repentant even with this amount."
