In, Sijo Sebastain vs Karnataka Information Commission & Others, the Single Bench of Karnataka HC While Levying a penalty of Rs.25, 000/- has held that, government and public officials are supposed to serve the people. Investigative journalists and watchdog civil society organizations can use the right to access information to expose wrongdoing and help root it out.
Facts
Petitioner’s RTI case having been favored, the answering respondent who happen to be the Public Information Officer-cum-the Manager was directed to furnish the information as sought for. The said information came to be furnished with a delay of about two years. Petitioner’s statutory appeal number came to be disposed off by the 1st respondent Commission via order on the ground that after notice was effected on the 2nd respondent, he has furnished to the petitioner by a registered post the information/documents as was directed. The essential grievance of the petitioner is that the subject appeal could not have been so casually closed by order of the kind, closing eyes to the enormous delay
Hence, a writ petition is filed under Article 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India & RTI Act, Parrying: Under Section 23 of the RTI Act, to take action against the R1 & R2 with the Exemplary Punishment for Declaration of Duty, To Impose Maximum Penalty AS PER Section 20(1) & 20(2) of RTI Act, And, To grant deserved Compensation to the petitioner for the Difficulties & Mental Agony Caused by the Action of the Respondents.
Contention Made
Petitioner: The essential grievance of the petitioner is that respondent-Commission being a statutory quasi judicial body cannot act like a maharaja or moghul, its functions being of public law 5 character. The petitioner passionately submits that fine ought to have been levied on the 2nd respondent erring official, to say the least.
Respondents: While seeking dismissal of Writ Petition, Learned Counsel Contended, whether penalty should be levied or not, is a matter of discretion and therefore is not ordinarily susceptible to judicial review of the writ court; even otherwise the information sought for having been shared with the petitioner, the present grievance is unsustainable.
Court Observation
The Single Bench of Karnataka HC observed that, While Stressing Upon the Importance of ‘Right to Information’ in a Democratic Nation noted, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has described information as ‘the oxygen of democracy’. The right of access to information is recognized even under the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), as an element of freedom of expression. And, the same is expressly recognized & adopted by the Indian Constitution.
The Bench further observed; Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 prescribes penalty of Rs.250/- for delay of each day brooked in furnishing the information.
The 1st Proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 20 enacts ‘Audi Alteram Partem’, and therefore before levying the penalty the erring person needs to be heard, is true. The 2nd Proviso enacts a negative burden and places it on the shoulders of the erring official to prove that he acted reasonably & diligently in furnishing the information.
Court Judgment
The Karnataka HC, while allowing the Writ Petition has held that, This second proviso itself shows the significance of the right to information as legislated by the Parliament. That being the position, there was absolutely no reason for closing the appeal of the petitioner without levying penalty on the 2nd respondent
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (being the maximum prescribed u/s.20 of the RTI Act) is levied on the 2nd respondent, The petitioner is awarded a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The 2nd respondent shall remit the penalty amount along with costs to the petitioner within a period of 30 days; delay will carry interest at the rate of 2% per mensum for the first 30 days and 3% for the day’s next following.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
