Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat
Former State Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi a week before his retirement gave a landmark judgment on Feb 18th 2016 by making it clear to “Public Authorities” about misusing the legal term Sub-Judice. It has become a norm for many Government officials to misuse and misinterpret this legal terminology and under its garb not only the information is denied under Right to Information Act (RTI), but injustice is done with many people who remain silent due to lack of legal knowledge. The State Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) in his orders said that there is no mention of word sub-judice in section 8 (exemption clause) of J&K RTI Act 2009. The information commission in its orders has cleared the doubts that unless any Court of Tribunal has forbidden for making information public , the public authorities cannot invoke word Sub-Judice on their own and tell RTI applicants that information cannot be provided as the matter is pending before Judiciary.
Case details :
In order seek some information from J&K Housing Board one Ashudeep Kohli R/O Channi Himmat Jammu filed an application under J&K RTI Act 2009 in the office of Senior Programmer who is also the designated Public Information Officer (PIO) of J&K Housing Board. The RTI application was received in the office of Senior Programmer (PIO) on June 2nd 2015. Ashudeep Kohli wanted to know the reasons for not considering his bid for allotment of a shop in Sector 1, Channi Himmat, Jammu. In this regard MD J&K, Housing Board had already issued an advertisement on 17-07-2014. Kohli also sought information about commercial and residential properties of J&K Housing Board ie Shops, shop sites, strips allotted at the reserve price or on single bid in auction or without auction in Channi Himmat, Housing Colony from January 1st 2005 to May 30th 2015. The Housing Board Senior Programmer (PIO) passed an order on June 27th 2015 and provided information under RTI Act to Ashudeep Kohli. After getting the reply Kohli was not satisfied with the reply and on July 11th 2015 he challenged the reply by filing first appeal before the Managing Director who is the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of Housing Board. On August 14th 2015 , the MD Housing Board who was formerly posted as Secretary State Information Commission (SIC) decided the 1st appeal by upholding the PIO’s order . Not satisfied again with MD’s orders , Ashudeep Kohli knocked the doors of State Information Commission (SIC) by filing 2nd appeal on September 29th 2015.
The State Information Commission (SIC) heard this case several times and on February 18th 2016 the commission gave its final judgment. Commission made it clear that there is no concept of sub-judice under Section 8, which is the provision of law along with Section 9, which exempts certain information for being disclosed. Section 8(1) (b) of the J&K State RTI Act, 2009 states that information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court shall not be disclosed.
Information Commission’s order reads :
” The Commission heard FAA, PIO and the appellant and perused the record. Then Commission found that with respect to information asked at point 1 of the RTI application, PIO had replied to the appellant that the case was sub-judice in the Hon’ble High Court, J&K and the points of information asked in the RTI application are also included in the Court case. The Commission has gone through relevant provisions of the law and found that there is no concept of sub-judice under Section 8, which is the provision of law along with Section 9, which exempt certain information for being disclosed. Section 8(1)(b) of the J&K State RTI Act, 2009 states that information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court shall not be disclosed. The FAA and PIO have not brought anything to the notice of the Commission, wherein, Hon’ble High Court or any other Tribunal has expressedly forbidden the disclosure of information or anything which may constitute contempt of the court. As there is no any such expressed direction of any court or tribunal or anything which may constitute contempt of the court, therefore, information as sought by the appellant becomes disclosible and PIO to disclose said information within 15 days of the receipt of this order”
As for as second part of the information is considered the PIO asked Ashudeep Kohli that no shop, shop sites, strips, etc have been allotted without auction or on reserve price. However, Kohli alleged in his appeal that the J&K Housing Board has allotted shops on single bid at Sector-2, 60 Feet Road, Main Road, Channi Himmat, Jammu and Tawi Shopping Complex, Sector-2, Channi Himmat, Jammu on single bid and reserve price. Kohli could not produce any documentary proof in this regard before the Commission to substantiate his allegation. The Senior Programmer (PIO) of J&K, Housing Board was directed by Commission to examine the matter. The commission’s order further reads:
“If he found that information as already provided has not been provided strictly in accordance with RTI application, the he is directed to modify his order and provide correct and complete information to the appellant. The appellant will be at liberty to file a complaint in case wrong and incorrect information is provided by the PIO”
Conclusion :
It is not only in case of providing information under Right to Information Act (RTI) that PIO’s mislead citizens by invoking the word Sub-Judice , but in several other cases also , some Government officials try their level best to deny justice to people by misinterpreting this legal terminology. The SIC’s order in this direction will be helpful to people to seek justice from various forums. Making this issue public will definitely help people and that is the reason I chose to write on this very particular issue.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel