Public Information Officers (PIOs) are the designated officers who deal with RTI related cases in the Public Authorities. Section 5 (1) J&K Right to Information Act 2009 says that every Public Authority will designate as many officers as Public Information Officers (PIOs) in all its administrative units. The job of the PIOs is to provide information to RTI applicants. He or she has to be well versed with the RTI law.
Recently in an exceptional case Standing Counsel of Srinagar MunicipalCorporation (SMC) appeared before State Information Commission (SIC) duringhearing of a 2nd appeal. This was not his job because Standing Counsel is neither the designated PIO nor the FirstAppellate Authority (FAA). Standing Counsels of Government organizationsusually appear before the High Court or other courts defending the department,but in this particular case the counsel tried to defend the PIO before StateInformation Commission (SIC) while as PIO was absent.
Background
A resident of Srinagar, on July 6th 2018, filed anRTI application before the PIO, who is also the Secretary of Srinagar MunicipalCorporation (SMC). Information seeker sought response to his 10 questions. Thedesignated PIO provided information vide his official letter dated August 3rd2018. However, information seeker was not satisfied and filed first appealbefore the Commissioner SMC who is also the designated First AppellateAuthority (FAA). Feeling aggrieved by FAAs response the seeker filed 2ndappeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) on November 10th2018. In his appeal he submitted that the information furnished was inadequateand misleading.
The appeal came up for hearing before the State InformationCommission (SIC) on January 16th2019. The PIO was represented by Standing Counsel of SMC. The counsel for thePIO submitted that complete information has been furnished to the appellant.The appellant acknowledged that information had been furnished to him. However,the same was deficient in so far asresponse to point No. 6 of the RTI application was concerned. In point No. 6 ofthe RTI request, the appellant had sought action taken on the representationsmade to SMC on 20-12-2017, 20-01- 2018, 17-02-2018 and 18-04-2018.
The residents of Brein Nishat had complained before SMC aboutthe menace of stray dogs in Ward No. 2 and had requested SMC to take necessaryaction. SIC issued order and disposed of the appeal directing the PIO , SMC tofurnish information in respect of point No. 6 of the RTI application dated06-07-2018 relating to action taken on the representations made by theresidents of Brein Nishat against the threat posed by stray dogs. SIC orderreads “This information shall be provided to the appellant within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”
Conclusion
While hearing the 2nd appeal Information Commissionershould have sought an explanation from the Standing Counsel as to why he wasappearing before the Commission? I amnot criticizing Commission’s order but if this practice is not plugged, infuture, the designated Public Information Officers (PIOs) will start sendingthe standing counsels of their respective departments to appear beforeCommission which will defeat the process of RTI law. PIOs are the designatedofficers and there is no scope of lawyers to be hired by them. If lawyers areto be hired then the role of PIOs should go, which is not at all possiblebecause standing counsels are not the custodians of official record in a publicauthority. I would also suggest Commissioner SMC to designate several PIOs inSMC and not put the entire burden of this huge organization on a single PIO– Secretary SMC.
Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat is Chairman Jammu & Kashmir RTI Movement
bhatrajamuzaffar@gmail.com