Kohima, July 9 (DIPR): The State government has reiterated on proper implementation of the Right to Information Act 2005. Taking note that many departments have also been ignoring the Act and that the information sought were not replied positively and within the stipulated date, the department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms has highlighted important provisions of the Act.
In an office memorandum issued by Commissioner and Secretary of P&AR, Temjen Toy, it was reiterated that the state government adopted the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the provisions contained in the Act are to be adhered and implemented by all departments. Some of the important provisions of the Act are reiterated below:
Section 5 & 9 states that all government departments/corporations should designate offices as Appellate Authority/Public Information Officer and Assistant Public Information Officers. Whenever any appointed/nominated Appellate Authorities, PIOs and APIOs are transferred/retire from their respective departments, the concerned departments are to reappoint/nominate other Appellate Authorities, PIOs and APIOs respectively.
Under Section 4(1) (B) of the Act, each department and Public Sector Undertakings of the state are required to prepare and publish a manual of the departments giving the particulars of the organisation, powers and duties, rules, regulation, instructions, manuals and records held by it, directory of its officers and employees and particulars of all plans, programmes of the department, etc. Section 25(1)(2)(3) states that all departments should prepare annual reports and submit to the Chief Information Officer, which the CIC will then place during the Assembly Session.
In another circular, the P&AR department has highlighted the decision of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, dated 03.04.2008 in Writ Petition No. 419 of 2007, in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission under the right to Information Act, 2005, with regard to the definition of the term ‘information’. The relevant part of the judgement stated that ‘the definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question “why” which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.’
