New Delhi: After more than 16 years RTI Act Was enacted to bring transparency in the working of governments, the flood of writ petitions continues Supreme court, which on Friday sought the Centre’s response, reluctantly, on another PIL complaining that public authorities are not complying right to Information Mandate to make voluntary disclosures about its activities.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh issued notice on a PIL filed by advocate KC Jain, who said that Section 4 of the Act transparency is the soul and spirit of the law and without direction from the apex court to the governments and in letter and spirit. For compliance with this, the RTI Act will continue to be a decorative law.
Jain said, “This writ petition seeks to invoke Section 4 of the RTI Act, which is the soul and spirit of the RTI Act. This provision needs to be proactive and proactive. voluntary disclosure All important information relating to the working of public authorities as specified in section 4. Reports from the Central Information Commission and other organizations indicate that there is very poor compliance of the Section 4 mandate. We pray that the order of section 4 is implemented through the orders of the Supreme Court, otherwise it will remain a decorative law.”
He also said that the Department of Personnel and Training had issued an office memorandum requiring public officials to conduct third-party audits to check Section 4 mandated disclosure levels.
But, Central Information Commission reports 2018-19 and 2019-20 show that only one-third of public authorities conducted such public audits and it was found that their performance was very poor, Jain said, once The disclosures are as follows. As per the mandate of the RTI Act, there will be more transparency and people will not need to resort to RTI as often as they do now.
Justice Kaul remained unconvinced. “It is a law and a mechanism to enforce the law. I do not believe in issuing futile directions. What is the point of issuing directions when the law mandates the manner and manner of implementation of the law. Certainly the law and its provisions have to be implemented. What mandates can be issued by the court? How will we monitor whether such a direction, even if issued, has been implemented? Rather it is a meaningless directive Will happen.”
The Chief Justice of the bench asked – “Can SC say that RTI is a section of the Act and an OM and hence, all public authorities should follow it? What is the meaning of such a direction? How will we monitor its implementation? ??
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh issued notice on a PIL filed by advocate KC Jain, who said that Section 4 of the Act transparency is the soul and spirit of the law and without direction from the apex court to the governments and in letter and spirit. For compliance with this, the RTI Act will continue to be a decorative law.
Jain said, “This writ petition seeks to invoke Section 4 of the RTI Act, which is the soul and spirit of the RTI Act. This provision needs to be proactive and proactive. voluntary disclosure All important information relating to the working of public authorities as specified in section 4. Reports from the Central Information Commission and other organizations indicate that there is very poor compliance of the Section 4 mandate. We pray that the order of section 4 is implemented through the orders of the Supreme Court, otherwise it will remain a decorative law.”
He also said that the Department of Personnel and Training had issued an office memorandum requiring public officials to conduct third-party audits to check Section 4 mandated disclosure levels.
But, Central Information Commission reports 2018-19 and 2019-20 show that only one-third of public authorities conducted such public audits and it was found that their performance was very poor, Jain said, once The disclosures are as follows. As per the mandate of the RTI Act, there will be more transparency and people will not need to resort to RTI as often as they do now.
Justice Kaul remained unconvinced. “It is a law and a mechanism to enforce the law. I do not believe in issuing futile directions. What is the point of issuing directions when the law mandates the manner and manner of implementation of the law. Certainly the law and its provisions have to be implemented. What mandates can be issued by the court? How will we monitor whether such a direction, even if issued, has been implemented? Rather it is a meaningless directive Will happen.”
The Chief Justice of the bench asked – “Can SC say that RTI is a section of the Act and an OM and hence, all public authorities should follow it? What is the meaning of such a direction? How will we monitor its implementation? ??
,