News Summary: To balance the prevention of misuse with the protection of genuine RTI users' rights, Lucknow-based Sanjay Sharma raises demands to Establish a reasonable cap on the maximum number of complaints and appeals an individual may file annually; Introduce a stringent verification mechanism to assess the authenticity of individuals or entities claiming to operate as NGOs or RTI facilitation services’ offices and Develop and enforce a code of conduct to maintain order and decorum during hearings, within & outside the RTI Bhawan premises and on Social Media Platforms.
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh — August 21, 2024 — A comprehensive petition has been submitted to the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPIC) and other stakeholders at National and State level by Sanjay Sharma, a resident of Rajajipuram, Lucknow, advocating for significant regulatory changes to curb the misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Sharma's petition, dated August 20, 2024, seeks to impose a cap on the number of complaints and appeals an individual may file annually, introduce stringent verification processes for NGOs and RTI facilitators, and enforce a code of conduct to maintain order.
Background and Purpose of the Petition
The RTI Act, enacted to promote transparency and accountability, has witnessed increasing exploitation by certain individuals and entities. Sharma’s petition addresses concerns over the misuse of the RTI framework, particularly by NGOs and RTI facilitation services, which have allegedly engaged in filing excessive and frivolous complaints and appeals. This misuse, according to Sharma, disrupts the functioning of the UPIC, delays the resolution of legitimate RTI requests, and adversely affects the rights of bona fide users.
According to Sharma, Such misuse manifests through Filing excessive and frivolous complaints and appeals, Disrupting the Commission’s operations, Engaging in disruptive behavior during hearings, Hooliganism in groups inside and outside the premises of RTI Bhawan and Hooliganism on Social Media Platforms.
Legal Framework and Rationale
Sharma’s petition invokes specific sections of the RTI Act and constitutional provisions. Sharma has cited the Constitutional Provision of Article 19(2) which imposes reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) to maintain national security, public order, and other legitimate interests.
Sharma has cited Statutory Provisions of Section 15(4), Sections 18 and 19, and Section 28 of the RTI Act. Citing Sections 18 and 19, Sharma says that these sections detail the mechanisms for lodging complaints and appeals but do not specify limits, which has led to misuse by some individuals.
Judicial Precedents
The petition references several key judicial decisions that underscore the need for regulation to prevent misuse while ensuring the Act's objectives.
Sharma has cited Supreme Court’s Judgments passed in cases Central Information Commission v. State of Manipur (AIR 2009 SC 2116;Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (AIR 1995 SC 1236;D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions (AIR 2009 SC 1156);Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Supreme Court of India (2013 (4) SCC 641);Prashant Bhushan v. Union of India (2018 SCC Online SC 2157);S. S. Gulsher v. Union of India (2019 SCC Online SC 336);Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002 SCC (5) 294) and Mathew v. Union of India (2016 SCC Online SC 1295).
Sharma has also cited various High Court Judgments like those passed in Mr. X v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 13053 of 2010, Punjab and Haryana High Court; Ram Rati v. State of UP (WP No. 18072 of 2016, Allahabad High Court); Suresh Chandra v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 1273 of 2013, Delhi High Court); R. R. Verma v. Union of India (WP No. 1966/2015, Delhi High Court);K. K. Sharma v. Chief Information Commissioner (W.P.(C) 2527/2018, Delhi High Court); Suman Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand (WP No. 1305/2016, Uttarakhand High Court); Naveen Kumar v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 4475/2019, Delhi High Court; B. D. Sharma v. Chief Information Commissioner (WP(C) 912/2017, Delhi High Court);P. M. Sharma v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 8254/2018, Delhi High Court); Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 24289 of 2016, Punjab and Haryana High Court) and Ashok Kumar v. Chief Information Commissioner (WP(C) No. 7685/2017, Delhi High Court).
Issues and Demands
Sharma argues that the excessive filing of complaints and appeals by some individuals delays responses to legitimate RTI requests, infringing upon the rights of genuine users. Not only this, the petition claims that the influx of frivolous complaints and appeals creates a backlog, affecting the Commission's efficiency and leading to disruptive behavior during hearings by the people coming in Groups.
Proposed Measures
Sharma requests the establishment of a reasonable cap on the number of complaints and appeals an individual may file annually to balance misuse prevention with the protection of legitimate RTI users' rights. The petition also calls for a stringent verification mechanism to assess the authenticity of individuals or entities claiming to be RTI facilitation services to curb misuse. Sharma also seeks the development and enforcement of a code of conduct to maintain decorum during hearings and within and outside the RTI Bhawan premises.
Conclusion
Sanjay Sharma's petition highlights a critical issue in the RTI framework, aiming to balance transparency with practical administrative needs. As the UPIC reviews the petition, the proposed measures could lead to significant changes in how RTI complaints and appeals are managed, potentially impacting similar frameworks across India. The outcome of this petition could be pivotal in ensuring that the RTI Act remains effective and equitable.
For further updates on this petition, one can contact Sanjay Sharma at email address sanjaysharmalko@icloud.com and phone numbers 8004560000, 9454461111, and 9415007567.
No comments:
Post a Comment