Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi ruled, “The award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual and satisfies him personally, but also helps in curing a social evil”

In probably the first reflexive ruling, the Central Information Commission has issued a show-cause notice to its own CPIO (chief public information officer) and asked him to pay Rs3,000 as compensation to an appellant who was given piecemeal information, that too after much delay.

In a recent order, central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi ruled, “Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. The award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual and satisfies him personally, but also helps in curing a social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook. The Commission in exercise of its power under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI (Right to Information) Act awards a compensation of Rs3,000 to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to pursue the appeals and getting the information late. The Commission recommends that the secretary, CIC may consider recovering this amount from the salary of the persons responsible for this.”

The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the information before 10 May 2012 and the cheque be sent to the appellant before 1st June.

On 7^th September, 2010, the appellant Haroon Siddiqui had filed a query with the CIC, asking for a copy of rules under which the deputy registrar authorized to return the second appeal and state the reasons on record for the return. He had earlier asked for information related to a CIC ruling involving the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) and had asked for the company’s reply to the CIC. He received mostly evasive answers from the CPIO and deputy secretary S Padmanabha. Dissatisfied with the answers, Mr Siddiqui filed the first appeal, which was rejected.

The CIC deemed that the CPIO’s refusal to disclose IFFCO’s reply was ‘erroneous’. The ruling said, “This refusal was erroneous since Section 11 is only a procedure which requires the PIO to inform the third party of his intention to disclose the information if the information was received in confidence. After receiving any objection from the third party, if the information is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8(1) or 9, the information may be denied by the PIO after giving reasons. In the instant case the respondent states that there is no evidence of any letter having been sent to the third party seeking objection. Besides, the appellant has a right to get any counter statements or submission made by the opposite party. It appears that a completely unreasonable rejection was made and the appellant has not received the information so far at all.”

Mr Gandhi said that Mr Padmanabha is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him. He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit the Speed Post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant, along with the copy of the information.