Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat
It is now more than 13 years that we have a law on Right to Information enacted in Jammu & Kashmir. Initially it was J&K RTI Act 2004 enacted during PDP-Congress Government way back in 2004. The said law got amended in 2008 and finally J&K state enacted present version of RTI law in 2009 which is known as J&K RTI Act 2009. Even after so many years of its enactment , there are many public authorities especially the Government departments which are still unaware about RTI legislation. Police force is one of these Government organization. It is not the fault of Police officers who do not respond to RTI queries, but very less number of RTI applications are filed before the police department in J&K as compared to other Govt organizations who undertake developmental works or are responsible to recruitments in Government. Recently State Information Commission (SIC) decided an RTI appeal wherein an information seeker was not only denied information by J&K Police but the officers of the department seemed completely ignorant about this law.
RTI filed before SHO :
An information seeker from Nishat Srinagar namely Abdul Qayoom filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) before the Station House Office (SHO) ofPolice Station Awantipora in December 2016. The information seeker wanted some details about an FIR registered in PS Awantipora way back in 1998. After being denied the information aggrieved information seeker filed 1st appeal again before the SHO as he was ignorant about First Appellate Authority (FAA). Getting no response , Abdul Qayoom filed second appeal before State Information Commission (SIC) in April 2017. It is important to mention that SIC happens to be the 2nd Appellate Authority under RTI law.
The appellant told State Information Commission (SIC) that information sought from Police Station Awantipora was provided to him, but that is incomplete as no information has been provided about the persons against whom the FIR 49/1998 stands registered in the Awantipora Police Station . Appellant Abdul Qayoom requested State Information Commission (SIC) to direct the Public Information Officer (PIO) to provide him the complete information sought vide his RTI application dated 22.12.2016.
Information seeker being unaware of RTI Act , filed application before SHO , which otherwise he was supposed to file before the office of District Superintendent of Police (SSP Office). I want to make it clear that PIOs have been designated in Police Force at District level not at Thanalevel and neither RTI applicants nor police officers are aware of this. I have been told that at Sub Division level as well some SDPOs have been designated as PIOs , but there is no clarity on this.
On 31.01.2017, the appellant Abdul Qayoom filed First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the office of Police Station Awantipora on the ground that no information with regard to his RTI application has been provided to him. As per my information Police has designated Additional SP’s as First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) at district level and Deputy Superintendent of Police Headquarters (Dy SP Hqs) is the designated Public Information Officer (PIO), but this doesn’t means that Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) , SHO, Chowki Officer or any other police officer will not address the RTI pleas. They have to address the RTI pleas even if they are not designated officers to receive RTI applications. Section 6 (3) of J&K RTI Act 2009 , makes it clear that if the RTI plea comes to an officer who is not a designated PIO , the officials have to forward the application to the designated PIO. If SHO Awantipora was not a designated PIO , he was supposed to forward it to his Dy SP Hqs or Additional SP of the concerned Police District. But it seems SHO was unaware about these provisions. After several months SHO , Police Station Awantipora vide letter dated 21.02.2017, provided a limb of the information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the reply of the aforesaid SHO, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) .
Providing information was again a mistake committed by SHO , as he is not a designated officer to do so. Under RTI Act , Public Information Officer (PIO) is the custodian of Information and he has to provide the information under RTI Act.
Appeal before SIC :
While responding to the notice of the State Information Commission (SIC) , the SHO Police Station Awantipora vide letter dated 06.05.2017 informed the Information Commission that the RTI application of the appellant has already been replied vide letter dated 21.02.2017. Thereafter, SHO Police Station Awantipora filed another reply dated 04.07.2017 wherein he gave the factual report regarding the FIR No.49/1998 registered in Police Station Awantipora with respect to which the information was sought.
The 2nd appeal came up for hearing initially on 04.06.2017 before the State Information Commission (SIC) and then on 04.07.2017. Sub Inspector Mohammad Rafiq representing SHO, Police Station, Awantipora and appellant Abdul Qayoom attended the hearing before the Chief Information Commissioner Mr Khurshid Ahmad Ganai. The appellant submitted that the full information has not been provided to him by the PIO and names of the persons against whom FIR has been lodged have not been revealed . The representative of SHO Police Station Awantipora requested CIC , to give him some time to file para wise reply to the queries of the RTI application which was agreed. The hearing in the 2nd appeal was adjourned on 04.07.2017 with the following directions:
“PIO/SHO Police Station Awantipora is directed to give para wise/point wise response to the queries of the RTI application to the appellant within two weeks time under intimation to the Commission.”
Thereafter, in pursuance of the above directions of the State Information Commission, SHO Police Station Awantipora produced copy of the letter dated 11.08.2017 addressed to the appellant in which point wise reply to all the queries of the RTI application was given. The 2nd appeal was again heard by the Commission on 11.08.2017. Sub Inspector, Mohamamd Rafiq Belt No.170/S of Police Station, Awantipora and appellant Abdul Qayoom attended the hearing. During the hearing, it was noticed by CIC that no proceedings had been conducted at the level of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) before the submission of the 2nd appeal to the Commission. It was also not clear to the Information Commission as to which officers have been designated/appointed as the PIO & FAA in the Police District Awantipora.
CIC in his order said :
“It also needed to be ascertained as to whether SHO Awantipora is indeed the PIO or is it the SDPO who is designated as the PIO. Accordingly, the case was adjourned on 11.08.2017 with the following directions: “Reference be sent both to the Director General of Police, J&K and to the Superintendent of Police, Police District Awantipora to clarify designation of officer(s) as PIO and FAA for the Police District Awantipora.”
Final order :
The 2nd appeal came up for final hearing on 25.08.2017 before CIC Mr Khurshid Ahmad Ganai . Appellant Abdul Qayoom attended the hearing, however PIO did not attend. The appellant stated before the Commission that complete information has not been provided to him till date. The 2nd appeal was disposed of with the directions that Superintendent of Police, Police District Awantipora will first identify the PIO of Police District Awantipora.
Order issued by CIC further reads as :
“If no officer has been duly designated as the PIO, then have an officer designated as such. Then the said identified/duly designated PIO will furnish the requisite information in response to the basic RTI application submitted by the appellant to the SHO, Police Station Awantipora on 22.12.2016 mentioned herein above. Information in response to the RTI application may be provided within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be served on Superintendent of Police, Police District Awantipora for compliance and a report in response to the Commission’s order dated 11.08.2017”
Conclusion :
There is a huge gap between police and public and ordinary citizens are reluctant to seek information from Police. Most of the people are under this impression that police officials will harm them if they seek information under RTI from a police station or SP’s office. It is true that people have bad experience while they encounter police officers but there are lot of officers who are very much supportive and cooperate with RTI applicants. Recently IG North Kashmir Mr Nistish Kumar directed his officers to facilitate an RTI awareness programme in Gurez. RTI Movement plans to undertake similar awareness programmes in remote areas of state. I would request DGP J&K Police Dr S P Vaid to facilitate capacity building programmes for police officers vis a vis RTI Act so that officers are made aware about the provisions of J&K RTI Act 2009. CIC Mr Khurshid Ahmad Ganai has already written to him in this regard. Once police officers are trained how to address RTI queries, it will help smooth disposal of RTI petitions that remain pending in police offices for months together. Had SHO Awantipora or his staff been trained on the provisions of RTI Act , Abdul Qayoom would not have suffered and he would not have been compelled to knock the doors of State Information Commission.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel