Punjab info commission working ‘unofficially’
Wednesday, 03/10/2012
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121003/punjab.htm#3
Chandigarh : While information commissions of various states have stopped working following an order of the Supreme Court, the Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) is hearing cases and making suggestions, but not passing any orders. In short, it is working only "unofficially". The SC has recently pointed out that since information commissions were quasi-judicial bodies, these could not function without judges or legal experts on the panel.
No member of the PSIC wishes to confirm the public hearing of complaints. But off the record, a number of them accepted that they were "perusing papers and listening to complainants". "Since people come here from far off places, we hear them. We are not passing any orders. Just hearing them does not amount to contempt of court".
Ramesh Inder Singh, Chief Information Commissioner, said: "We had sought feedback from different states, but got contradictory opinions. We are undecided. The matter was referred to the Advocate General. We are yet to get a reply. The Kerala Government has said there is no ban on the continuation of appointed members so they could continue to function normally. Haryana has opined that any work by the commission will amount to contempt of court".
HC Arora, president, RTI Activists Federation, Punjab, said: "The commission should be headed by a judge. We had highlighted at least 116 orders passed by the commission which did not stand any legal merit". It is being felt that there is a need to study the SC order in detail as it could mean that the entire existing system has no legal power.
Reports state that commissions of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana have stopped passing orders. But the Central Information Commission is learnt to be working. There are reports of confused status in a number of other states.
A senior government official said: "The government should seek a clarification on the matter because it raises a question mark on all orders passed by the commission till date".
