Dear all,
The Governor of Goa has moved the Supreme Court of India against an order of the Bombay High Court claiming that he is not a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). In a judgement delivered in November 2011, the Bombay High Court had upheld a decision of the Goa State Information Commission directing the Public Information Officer of the Governor’s Secretariat to provide an RTI applicant a copy of the Governor’s report prepared in July-August 2007. This report, addressed to the President of India, apparently pertained to the political developments in Goa during that period. At the time of making the application the requestor was the Leader of the Opposition. Today the RTI applicant – Shri Manohar Parrikar- is the newly elected Chief Minister of Goa. Shri K Shankaranarayanan the Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra is currently officiating as the Hon’ble Governor of Goa. The complete text of the High Court’s judgement is attached.
The Supreme Court admitted the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the order of disclosure in December, 2011. A second SLP was filed by the same Governor’s Secretariat against another RTI matter which was also decided by the Bombay High Court in the same judgement. Both matters came up for hearing in March 2012. As no counsel Shri Parrikar turned up on the date of hearing, the Apex Court ordered issuance of fresh notice to him. As important constitutional questions had been raised in the twin petitions the Apex Court sought the appearance of the Attorney General for India. A second hearing was fixed for April 3, 2012. Today the counsel for Shri Parrikar appeared before the Apex Court and sought more time to file a response. The Court has granted four weeks’ time. The State Information Commission and the State Government have also been made parties to these cases.
Alerted by friends of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, CHRI has moved application to be treated as an Intervenor in the first SLP matter. While this application has been officially circulated it is up to the Apex Court to permit us to intervene.
Main contentions in the SLP:
After spending six years implementing the RTI Act and having appointed a Public Information Officer and a First Appellate Authority to deal with RTI applications and appeals, the Governor’s Secretariat now seeks to get out of the ambit of the RTI Act through the judicial route. Their main arguments are given in the second Some of the grounds mentioned in the SLP are worth highlighting to help readers understand the petitioner’s perspective:
As the matter is sub judice abundant caution must be exercised in debating these issues lest we incur the wrath of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However as users of RTI and bearers of the fundamental right to information which is a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression citizens have a right to debate these matters in an informed manner.
A decision in this case will affect every citizen of India. If the Hon’ble Court decides that the Governor is a public authority, every citizen’s right to obtain information from the office of the Governor of any State (except Jammu and Kashmir) remain intact. If the Court decides otherwise, no citizen will be able to obtain any information from any Governor’s Secretariat anywhere in the country. One by one all competent authorities such as the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha, the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha and the Legislative Councils, the Administrators of Union Territories, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of all High Courts may similarly claim complete exemption the RTI Act. Jammu and Kashmir may decide what to do with its own Governor’s office and other competent authorities under the J&K RTI Act after the Apex Court’s decision is pronounced in this matter.
To Be or Not to Be (A Public Authority): That is the Question (with apologies to Shakespeare, Sir Lawrence Olivier, Mel Gibson, Mel Brooks and Dr. Cherian Alexander who taught us Hamlet in college)
Are all Governors’ Reports Secret for Eternity?
It may be recalled that in the matter of S R Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1, the core contents of the reports sent by the Governors of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Nagaland to the then President of India were described the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (copy attached). Later in the matter of Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1, the complete text of three reports of the then Governor of Bihar sent to the then President of India are quoted word for word in the majority opinion (copy attached) the constitution bench.
The Governor’s reports from Bihar were made public within less than a year of their creation. The report in question in the Goa SLP matter is almost five years old. A new Government has taken over, so the contents of the report may now be of academic value only. Yet the Governor’s Secretariat is spending the tax-payers’ money to battle it out against the RTI Act.
Goa was the second State in the country after Tamil Nadu to enact its own RTI Act in 1997. Goans do something similarly path-breaking now to protect RTI from dismemberment?
Can we as citizens, groups and organisations defending RTI from roll-back build a strong public argument against denial of access to information by the Governor’s Secretariat?
In order to access our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues please click on: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=84 You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to receive these email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your refusal.
Thanks
Sincerely,
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, First Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017
Tel: +91-11-43180215/ 43180201
Fax: +91-26864688
Skype: venkatesh.nayak@skype.com
Alternate Email: nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
Website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
Attachements: