Partitions and bifurcations leave orphans behind. In case of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, it is the State Information Commission, the authorised body to oversee the implementation and promotion of the Right To Information (RTI) Act.
Due to the legal vacuum coupled with administration’s apathy, around 20,000 orders passed by nine information commissioners since June, 2014 could be in doldrums. Legal experts and RTI activists claim that almost all these orders can be challenged in courts.
Under the AP Reorganisation Act, all the State departments and institutions to be divided between the two States were listed in either Schedule 9 (for immediate division) or Schedule 10 (one year time). However, the AP Information Commission was neither in schedule 9 or schedule 10 for close to a year even after the bifurcation. As the Commission continued to pass orders during that period without any clue about its legal position, the Union Home Ministry realised the lacunae.
In May, 2015, the Home Ministry included the Information Commission in the tenth schedule leading to more legal confusion.
“If the first step is only wrong, it is but natural that the path taken from then on will also be wrong,” sums up Ram Madhav, Hyderabad-based lawyer and a researcher on RTI Act. “According to section 15 (1) of the RTI Act, every State should constitute its information commission and the Act does not provide for establishment of a joint State Information Commission for two or more States. Unfortunately, the Government of India notification to include the Commission in the tenth schedule of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 itself violates the provisions of the RTI Act. They should have amended the RTI Act before including it in the tenth schedule.”
Mr. Madhav said that since the functioning of the commission itself is not legally tenable under the RTI Act, the orders can be challenged.
In a latest move which has been dubbed “unconstitutional” by RTI experts, the Telangana government issued a G.O. (Government Order) to hand over the charge of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) to one of the commissioners after it fell vacant due to retirement of the previous CIC.
“The order was issued by the Telangana government whereas the body is still known as AP Information Commission. Why was the AP government so silent on this issue?” questions Rakesh Reddy, Convener of Telangana UFRTI (United Forum for RTI Campaign), umbrella body of civil society organisations. “Both the State governments are seen fighting for control over various departments and also assets. But when it comes to Information Commission, they are least interested.”
Senior RTI activist C.J. Karira said that the status of the commission can be absolutely legal only when both the States constitute individual information commissions.
