The Hindu : New Delhi News : Vigilance officer held guilty

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jul 10, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

Vigilance officer held guilty

Devesh K. Pandey

Of refusing information on frivolous grounds

NEW DELHI: Holding the then Public Information Officer of the Delhi Government’s Directorate of Vigilance guilty of refusing information on frivolous grounds, the Central Information Commission on Thursday directed the incumbent to provide file noting details pertaining to guidelines issued by the Department on interaction with the media to the applicant.

Through an RTI application, Raaj Mangal Prasad of non-government organisation Pratidhi had in February sought from the Directorate of Vigilance a copy of the guidelines and all the pages of file noting details including approval of the Chief Secretary of the State Government. However, the PIO refused to part with the file noting details stating that they were exempted under Section 8(1) (d) and (g) of the Act.

“Sub-section ‘d’ pertains to information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property. Sub-section ‘g’ pertains to information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. How these two sub-sections apply in this case,” asked Mr. Prasad.

First Appellate Authority Ashutosh Kumar supported the PIO’s stand-point stating that no public interest was going to be served by disclosing file notings by various authorities. The applicant then moved the second appeal.

After hearing both sides, Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said the RTI Act did not require any reason to be given by an applicant for seeking information. He said the public interest clause is an override to all the exemptions of Section 8 (1).

Mr. Gandhi allowed the appeal and directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant before July 20. He said from the facts before the Commission it was apparent that the then PIO, D. Verma, was guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act by not replying within 30 days. “The PIO has refused information on frivolous grounds without any reasoning. It appears that Mr. Verma’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).”

The Information Commissioner also issued a show-cause notice to Mr. Verma and directed him to give his reasons to the Commission why penalty should not be levied on him. “He will present himself before the Commission at 4 p.m. on August 24 along with his written submissions showing the cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant,” said the order.

The circular in question -- made public through the Directorate of Information and Publicity website -- instructs the Anti-Corruption Branch of the State Government not to give publicity to “sting operations”.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi