: A query under the RTI Act has exposed how miscreants exploited loopholes in the procedures involved in registration of documents, prompting the State Information Commission (SIC) to call for “water-tight” procedures to ensure identification of persons executing deeds as well as witnesses.
While inquiring into a petition filed by R. Ganesh of Nungambakkam here who sought to know details of witnesses in a settlement deed, the SIC found that there was no practice of the Sub-Registrar taking copies of identity proof of witnesses.
When the petitioner wrote to the Sub-Registrar seeking information of the witnesses who identified the settlor, he was given sketchy details. He appealed to the SIC alleging that in the copy of the voter identity card of the settlor which was sent to him, the face was blackened and the identity could not be made out. The identity cards of the two witnesses were not furnished.
A scrutiny of the settlement deed showed that the father’s name of the first witness was found written illegibly while the name and other details of the second witness were all written illegibly. The copy of the settlor’s voter identity card available in the file carried a photo from which the identity of the person could not be deciphered.
In his statement, the Registrar said that identity cards of witnesses were not collected. Though the SIC was convinced that the information available in the Sub-Registrar’s office had been furnished, it was of the view that the case had brought to light anomalies in the process of registration.
State Chief Information Commissioner K. Ramanujam noted that a copy of the voter identity card in which the photo was not legible was accepted at the time of registration. The details of the witnesses were not recorded clearly and no identity card was collected to prove the identity of the witnesses since there was no such requirement.
When the identities of the witnesses were not themselves established, they were used to identify the person executing the deed. A reasonable system would be that either the Registrar knew the witness and certified the fact or collected the proof of identity. “According to the PIO, the rules provide for a witness to write the name and address. This, coupled with the fact that no identity proof is collected, might pave the way for impersonation as the witness might record the details in an illegible manner. The petitioner claims to have got proof from the election office that the voter identity card number of the executor given was bogus,” he said.
The CIC wrote to the Inspector-General of Registrations, Government of Tamil Nadu, for appropriate action, including remedial measures to ensure water-tight procedures to ensure identification of persons executing deeds as well as the witnesses.
