RTI activists peeved at ‘selective revelations’

RTI activists peeved at ‘selective revelations’
Jeeva, TNN, Nov 19, 2010, 03.42am IST


CHENNAI: Y Aruldoss, a right to information (RTI) activist in Ayanavaram, was aghast when he received an order from the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission last week saying he could not ask for details affecting the functioning of a public authority. The commission, in the order, also advised him to ask for only the "required information".

He was understandably agitated because the RTI Act does not limit the number of queries that can be raised in an application. The applicant had filed an appeal with the commission after the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB) had failed to reply to 10 of 42 queries about slum eviction in the city.

"The TNSCB denied me the details by misrepresenting section 7(9) of the Act. I moved the commission asking it to direct the board to disclose the complete information I had sought. But the commission passed the order which only goes against the spirit of the law. The commission did not even mention the legal provision under which it upheld the rejection of my application,'' said Aruldoss, who is also the youth coordinator of National Alliance of People's Movement, which has been working for the cause of slum-dwellers.

The commission passed a similar order last week to another RTI application, which he had filed with the Public Works Department relating to slum eviction and construction of elevated highways in Chennai. V Gopalakrishnan, another RTI activist in KK Nagar, has the same complaint. "I wanted a reply from the revenue authorities to seven queries about the distribution of flood relief of `2,000 per family in nine residential colonies in my area in 2008, but I did not get the reply. I moved the commission, which in turn said I should ask only limited information under the RTI Act,'' Gopalakrishnan said. He then moved the commission for a second time, seeking a full-bench hearing. He said the appeal has been pending for over a year now.

Many RTI campaigners pointed out that several public authorities reject applications by wrongly interpreting section 7(9), which says that "an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."