Date:22/08/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/08/22/stories/2008082253890500.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Information panel slaps maximum penalty in 24 cases

Shyam Ranganathan

CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission has imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 in 24 cases against public authorities for not providing sufficient and timely information on petitions filed under the Right to Information Act, according to a study carried out by an activist.

The activist, Madhav V, studied the judgments delivered by the commission between 2006 and May 2008 and found that it had decided on the most severe penalties for non-compliance with the Act on authorities, including the University of Madras and the Highways Department.

In some of the judgments, the commission remarked that the authorities had deliberately withheld information and engaged in stonewalling. There were also mentions of the authority concerned not turning up even after a summons was issued, thus causing the petitioners hardship.

Chief Information Commissioner S. Ramakrishnan said the number of cases in which penalties were imposed was actually higher; it could be in the order of 200 and above. The discrepancy in the numbers shown by the study was because the penalties were not imposed with the judgments in some cases, he said. An opportunity was given to the respondents to explain why the penalty should not be imposed on them. When the public information officers (PIO) did not give satisfactory answers, the commission had imposed penalties later.

While the penalties are a useful deterrent against the erring authorities, there has been no follow-up on whether the penalties were actually enforced. In a case in which the commission had imposed a penalty on the Highways Department, the petitioner said a friend had actually filed another petition to know whether the penalty was enforced. No reply has been obtained from the public information officer on this petition, he said.

Mr. Ramakrishnan, however, said new staff had been appointed to the commission, and a person would be directed to follow up on all judgments to ensure the directions were carried out.