Court rider on information on officials' assets
Gandhinagar, Dec 10 (IANS) The Gujarat High Court Friday ordered
public information officers (PIO) to issue notice and consider the
objections of all concerned before passing an order on a Right To
Information (RTI) disclosure of the annual property returns (APRs) of
public servants.
The court order came as it heard the petition of senior Indian
Administrative Service (IAS) officer Arvind Agrawal seeking to set
aside the chief information commissioner's order directing the state
to furnish such details.
Agrawal contended that such details were 'personal' and could not be
given under RTI.
Justice Akil Kureshi, after considering the rival submissions in the
case, sent back the matter to the PIO and ordered to follow the
procedure in accordance with law. The court said that the Chief
Information Commissioner R.N.Das's order stands clarified by this
direction so as to clear the ambiguity in it.
However, Justice Kureshi told the counsels: 'Once you are in public
domain then you should not be shy of revealing your own properties.
This court is not hearing the case on merits as its been remanded back
to PIO, otherwise I would have decided the issue right here.'
An order by Das, an ex-secretary in the central government, directed
the state government to furnish APRs of IAS, IPS and IFS officers
following an appeal by journalist Kapil Dave, seeking to know the
richest officials in Gujarat and whether their property was
disproportionate to their known source of income.
The state general administration and forest and environment
departments had denied giving the information of APRs saying that it
is personal information of officers and cannot be given under the RTI
act, while the home department furnished APRs of only those Indian
Police Service (IPS) officers who consented to share it.
The commission noted in the order: 'APRs may contain personal
information, but it cannot be said that its disclosure has no
relationship to any public interest or that its disclosure would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Citing the judgement by Supreme Court judge P.V. Reddy in the Peoples
Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, where the court had held
that in case of conflict between public interest and private interest
to maintain privacy, the public interest would retain primacy, the
commission held that the disclosure of APRs of public servant should
be considered as a step to contain corruption as its disclosure may
reveal instances where property has been acquired which may be
disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servants.
--
Urvashi Sharma
RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com
Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )
No comments:
Post a Comment