Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat
After the Central RTI Act 2005 was extended to J&K post Article 370 abrogation people were expecting public authorities in J&K to be more responsive. This seems to be the opposite as Government Departments and other institutions are either non responsive or information is totally denied under RTI Act. In my previous piece I had highlighted how public authorities like the office of Deputy Commissioner Budgam , Rural Development Department Civil Secretariat Jammu, Services Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB) and several other public authorities were denying information under RTI. All these public authorities didn’t even respond back to RTI applicants within stipulated time. The DC office Budgam even failed to adjudicate the first appeal filed by the appellant namely Mushtaq Ahmad Lone. The aggrieved has now filed 2nd appeal before Central Information Commission (CIC).
PSC denies info
In a recent case J&K Public Service Commission (PSC) has once again denied to provide certified copies of evaluated answer scripts to an information seeker namely Mohammad Ramzan Khan. Mr Khan’s son Irfan had failed to qualify the J&K Civil Services Exam (CSE). The candidate had qualified the mains exam and appeared for the interview but his claim is that he has been given less marks in the Anthropology paper. Deputy Secretary who is also the designated Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the RTI applicant that PSC does not provide evaluated answer scripts of the candidates however he can inspect the same as per record retention schedule. This goes against several judgments of the J & K State Information Commission (JKSIC) and Central Information Commission (CIC). The order also goes against Supreme Court judgement titled CBSE Versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others.
JKSIC Judgement 2019
In April 2019 the erstwhile State Information Commission (SIC) has held that no Public Authority can deny information sought under the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI) by formulating any subjective opinion as the same amounts to over-riding the statutory law. The judgment pronounced by the then Information Commissioner Mohammad Ashraf Mir in a 2nd Appeal filed against the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) for denying evaluated answer sheets of all the papers of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Judicial Competitive Examination, 2017 to the appellant.
In response to the RTI application, the PIO had conveyed to the applicant that details of marks secured by each candidate in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Judicial Competitive Examination, 2017 were available on the website of the Public Service Commission. Regarding demand of evaluated answer scripts, the PIO contended that PSC has decided to provide copies of answer scripts only where the examination is of objective type/QMR format and in case of descriptive type examination, the PSC had decided to allow inspection of evaluated answer scripts.
Since the Judicial Services exam was a descriptive type examination, the PIO accordingly offered inspection of all answer scripts of the applicant instead of taking copies of the same. The appellant had submitted before the Information Commission that he was not interested in inspection of answer scripts and wanted hard copies of all his answer sheets. He even cited the celebrated judgment of Supreme Court titled “CBSE Versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others” and the judgment of Central Information Commission in case titled “Swati Babbar Versus GGSIP University”.
After hearing both the sides in length, the Information Commissioner Mohammad Ashraf Mir, while referring to the appropriate provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009, observed, “there is no dispute regarding the fact that an evaluated answer script is an information within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the J&K RTI Act, which corresponds to Section 2(f) of the Central Right to Information Act, 2005”. Referring the judgment of Supreme Court in “CBSE Versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others” case, the Information Commission further observed, “there is also no dispute that right to information includes inspection of documents/records as well as taking extracts or certified copies of documents or records in terms of Section 2(i) of the Act
Swati Babbar case
Vide her RTI application dated 26.12.2016, Swati Babbar an architecture student had sought copies of answer sheets (external exam) of some subjects in B.Arch course from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Delhi. The information was denied by the PIO. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also upheld the PIOs order. The case finally landed in the Central Information Commission (CIC) New Delhi when the aggrieved filed 2nd appeal. The then Information Commissioner Yashovardhan Azad while disposing off the case directed for disclosure of the information and issued penalty notice to the PIO of University for withholding information. The CIC order No: CIC/GGSIU/A/2017/109634 reads as :
“PIO failed to reply to RTI application dated 10.08.2016, a prima facie instance of causing deliberate obstruction in flow of information is made out against the then PIO. The Designated Officer of this bench is directed to issue show cause for maximum penalty to the then PIO. Notice be served through the present PIO as well as First Appellate Authority (FAA). Written explanation by notice must reach the Commission by 27.10.2017. Hearing, if found necessary, shall be notified in due course”
Conclusion
There are several other judgments issued by former State Chief Information Commissioners G R Sufi and Khurshid Ahmad Ganai wherein PSC has been directed to reveal copies of answer scripts to RTI applicants. There are several judgments of CIC plus Apex court order on the subject as well. If PSC continues to follow its own rules and strictures, this is nothing but lack of legal acumen among the officers of JKPSC. I hope they will go through the judgements I mentioned above. This will enable PIO of JKPSC to get some clarity on providing certified copies of answer scripts under RTI Act 2005 to information seekers. There are several cases wherein information seekers after having access to answer scripts were able to get justice. I am aware of a case titled Dr Riyaz Ahmad Daga V/s SKIMS Srinagar wherein 40 marks in one single paper of MD Medicine exam had not been counted and the RTI applicant had failed in the exam. All this was revealed when Dr Riyaz had been given access to answer scripts by the then State Chief Information Commissioner G R Sufi in 2012.
(The author is Founder and Chairman J&K RTI Movement)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel