A statement made by State Information Commissioner T. Srinivasan on October 21 that the Commission has no jurisdiction to inquire into allegations levelled against public information officers (PIO) for having provided misleading or false information, has come as a rude shock to RTI (Right to Information Act, 2005) activists here.
The commissioner had made the statement while disposing of an RTI application filed by an individual from Anna Nagar accusing the PIO of Madurai Municipal Corporation of having provided false information to him.
An inquiry in this regard was conducted by the Commissioner over video conferencing on September 29. The PIO as well as the RTI applicant were present.
Passing orders pursuant to the inquiry, the Commissioner held that the commission had no jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of providing false information.
He also advised the RTI applicant to seek remedy by approaching either the higher authorities of the local body or the appropriate forum. He held that the commission could only order supply of information.
RTI activist S. Mohammed Jamiluddin states that the commissioner’s order was contrary to Chapter V of the RTI Act which lays down the powers and functions of the Information Commissions. Section 18 (1)(e)of the Act categorically states that it would be the “duty” of State Information Commission to receive and inquire into complaints relating to furnishing of incomplete, misleading or false information.
Further, Section 18 (3) states that the Commission shall, while inquiring into any matter under the provision, have the same powers as were vested in a civil court.
It can summon, enforce the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and produce the documents concerned.
It also had the powers to examine any record under the control of the public authority.
“It is surprising that the present Commissioner has made such a statement. His decision is directly contrary to the view taken by former State Information Commissioner G. Ramakrishnan who even conducted a spot inspection on June 12, 2009 to verify the correctness of information provided by the Madurai Corporation with regard to a dispute over ownership of a Scheme road at Anna Nagar here.
“On August 14, 2007, Mr. Ramakrishnan had also directed the Madurai Collector to conduct an investigation under the supervision of the police or a senior revenue officer and send an enquiry report on the veracity of the information supplied by the Madurai Corporation in respect of the same road dispute. Accordingly, the then Collector S.S. Jawahar conducted an inquiry.”