M. K. Gupta,
Member, National RTI Forum
If an Information Commissioner says that he will not impose penalty on the Public Information Officer despite his repeated violation of the RTI Act as he is a quite young to compete for IAS. If he (Commissioner) imposed penalty even for a small amount, PIO’s chances for the selection in IAS will be ruined. IC further adds that the Appellant is more interested in the imposition of penalty on PIO rather than in getting the information. In such an eventuality, what are the option available, barring approaching the High Court, to the petitioner?
Contrary to this, the Appellant M K Gupta states that he had to approach to the Information Commission about five-six times in the past and information, as in those cases, the information was either provided after filing the case in the Central Information Commission or the same was provided on the order of the Commission. Therefore, PIO deserves penalty to make him compliant to the RTI Act. He contends that he is exercising his rights under the RTI Act.
In the past, the Appellant questioned the soft stand of two Information Commissioners through his writings on the violations of the PIOs of different Public Authorities including Delhi Development Authority and All India Radio. The Hon’ble Commissioner has rightly recommended to the Chief Information Commission for the transfer of the Appellant’s case to the satisfaction of the Appellant. Appellant says that the Information Commissioners should discharge public functions in the letter and spirit of the RTI Act only.
Opinion of the enlightened readers is invited on the stand of the Commissioner and the Appellant.
*******************************************
PUBLIC SERVICE AND PUBLIC CRITICISM
M.K. Gupta, Joint Secy. & Media Advisor, Dwarka Forum
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab said “Those who fill a public position must not be too thin skinned in reference to comments made by public upon them. It would often happen that observations would be made upon public men which they know from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved and unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time.”
The Supreme Court also adopted the following words of Bramwell, B., Kelly v. Sherlock, (1866) 1 QB 686: 35 LJ QB 209) “Whoever fills a public position renders himself open thereto. He must accept an attack as a necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his office.”
Simultaneously, the different Courts have also ruled that there should be no malice or bias in the criticism and they should not go beyond public functions.Labels: CIC, Dwarka Forum, government, RTI, Useful Informations
