Are you a public body under RTI or not? CIC wants Delhi L-G's reply in 30 days

New Delhi: Asking the Delhi Lieutenant Governor’s office to desist from adopting a flip-flop approach, the CIC has directed it to make clear within 30 days whether it considers itself a public authority under the Right to Information Act or not. The case relates to an RTI applicant seeking to get from the Lt Governor’s Office the communication exchanged with Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Advocate General and Solicitor General in connection with the Khriki Extension raid where the then Law Minister Somnath Bharti’s conduct came under question. [caption id=“attachment_2131409” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung. Reuters[/caption] He had also sought copies of other communications exchanged between LG and some other authorities on various issues. In its reply, the office neither provided information nor did it dispute being a public authority under RTI Act. The issue arose before Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu where officials representing the LG office cited a stay issued by Delhi High Court which was deciding on whether the office comes under the purview of the law. “They (Lt Governor office) never raised the claim that the office of LG was not public authority under RTI Act, 2005, until recently when they obtained a stay order from the Delhi High Court,” Acharyulu pointed out. Stating that LG office was violating the fundamental right to equality given under Article 14 of the Constitution, he said, “Strangely, the office of LG took a peculiar stand that whenever it is feasible it will conduct itself as a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act to give information, and whenever it is not, it will raise the claim that it is not a public authority.” Acharyulu directed LG office to inform and explain their contradictory stand and firm decision whether it wants to be public authority within 30 days. “The people of Delhi have a right to know whether their LG office is public authority or not… This is needed because it will kick up unnecessary litigations and increase the pendency on Delhi High Court,” he said. Acharyulu said the position taken by LG office is not in accordance with the avowed policy called ‘National Litigation Policy’ wherein the state is advised to behave like a responsible litigant and to identify and withdraw unnecessary litigation. When asked by Acharyulu whether LG office will respond to other appeals related to it before the Commission, officials said in spite of this stand that the matter of it being public authority under stay, it was ready to furnish information “to the extent feasible by them”. “But taking a U-turn to say that they are not public authority is whimsical and arbitrary intended only to deny information about certain questions and to certain people. “For some RTI applications, citizens will get information about certain questions and to certain people because office of LG considers itself as public authority, and some RTI applicant citizens will not get because same office does not consider it as public authority,” he said. The Information Commissioner said even as they are producing a copy of the stay order received from the Delhi High Court, they agreed to comply with the orders of the CIC and follow RTI Act in half-a-dozen cases. “I will give information whenever I like or whomever I like or whenever it is convenient to me, and if not, not. This is not the law. Parliament passed RTI law only to avoid this discriminatory attitude of the government offices. They should not act according to their whims and fancies in sharing information with public,” he said. The Commissioner said the office has been responding to RTI requests without protests so far whereas the office should have chosen to invoke the provisions of the RTI Act empowering them not to answer and taken the issue to higher court for clarification. “By acquiescence the public authority has conceded that they are public authority. They cannot approbate or reprobate or blow hot and cold at a same time. It is against principle of natural justice,” he said. PTI