Tuesday, March 29, 2011

SIC does volte-face on summons to governor


TNN; Mar 29, 2011,
PANAJI: The State Information Commission (SIC) which had earlier summoned governor S S Sidhu for denying information under the Right To Information (RTI) Act stating that the governor's office is not a public authority, has now passed an order stating that there is no need for Sidhu to appear personally before the commission.
"This present complaint is under the RTI Act. As far as this commission is concerned, the public information officer is the proper and necessary party. Under the RTI, the PIO is the interface between the public authority to which he belongs and a citizen seeking information from the public authority. In fact, he is the fulcrum around which the RTI Act operates. In view of this position, the governor need not appear personally," said state chief information commissioner MS Keny, in his order.
Though the commission has said that the governor need not appear in person before the SIC, the decision regarding the dismissal of the complaint against Sidhu will be considered while dealing with the main complaint, Keny added.
SIC had sent a notice directing the governor to personally appear before the commission, after Sidhu's office had refused to part with information sought by social activist Aires Rodrigues about action taken against advocate general Subodh Kantak. The action had been initiated based on a complaint filed by Rodrigues before the SIC, headed by retired Mumbai sessions judge Motilal Keny, stating that he was refused information under the RTI Act by the governor's office. While denying information, the governor's office had written to Rodrigues claiming that the governor is not a public authority and therefore does not come within the purview of the RTI Act.
In the RTI application filed by Rodrigues, he also sought copies of noting sheets and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against Kantak. The notice sent to the governor had said: "You are required to appear in person before this commission and not to depart without leave of the commission, and you are hereby warned that if you shall, without just excuse, neglect or refuse to appear on the aforesaid date and time, failing which the complaint will be decided in your absence."
The social activist in his complaint to the commission had said that the office of the governor is a constitutional post within the definition of "public authority" under Section 2 (h) (a) of the RTI Act. He had said that as the governor has been notified as a public authority, he is bound to furnish the information sought and that the refusal is contrary to the RTI Act and is also unreasonable, malafide and without reasonable cause.
However, appearing on behalf of the governor, advocate Carlos Alvares Ferreira contended that by virtue of Article 361, the Constitution of India, there is absolute protection, privilege and immunity to the governor of a state for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties, and hence the governor couldn't be arrayed as a party in the proceedings.