By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: Justice should prevail in the country Justice for all is the need of the hour .Poor people may not come to questioning government action .while one petitioner come a challenge it before high court and he gets justice and courts limits its order to petitioner .In such cases I feel injustice happens to other persons who are not petitioners stands on same equity . Public Interest in such cases need to be protected .Justice for all is the need of the hour.This matter needs debates in the judicial circles as court cannot do injustice to others who have not approached the court because of tier economic problems.
Reportedly in India, the Supreme Court took the lead by allowing volunteer social activists- to request the interests of the poor in judicial proceedings by expanding the doctrine of the locus standi in filling the petition and creating epistolary jurisdiction that enabled to treat a letter written on behalf of a disadvantaged person as a petition and examine the merits of the grievances.In India judicial activism was made possible by PIL (Public Interest Litigation). It has in a way democratized the judicial process. Furthermore, the PIL has contributed to the rise of a form of a judicial scrutiny of each and every governmental institution ranging from hospitals, prisons, manufacturing units covering issues of health, environment, safety, security, privacy and welfare etc.Its credit goes to the justice P. N. Bhagwati who has introduced the tradition of hearing on PIL even on a post card. Justice Bhagwati clearly stated, 'The supreme court has adopted a pro active approach for the last two years. Particularly, having regards to the peculiar socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country'. Thus, judicial activism is developed in each and every aspect of life, including social, economic, political, religious, educational etc. Undoubtedly, it has strengthened the faith of masses in the judiciary of the country.
RTI Act serves public interest .The Commission observed: Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission has set aside the order of First Appellate Authority for breach of natural justice .The Right to Information Act, 2005 already provides for imposition of penalty and recommendation of disciplinary action by the Central Information Commission/State Information Commission, as the case may be, against the Public Information Officer who has knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information under the RTI Act. The CIC/SICs have been imposing such penalties and also recommending disciplinary action against such Public Information Officers and directions issued to all the departments to fix responsibility and take action under the Government Employees Conduct Rules 1957. Giving Knowingly false information and forged information attracts IPC 464 Making a false document andIPC 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Punishment--Imprisonment for 7 years and fine--Cognizable--Non-bailable---Triable by Magistrate of the first class--Non-compoundable.Section 166 of IPC : Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person : Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.Most importantly in cited case law by Karira, the Commission themselves have invoked Section 166 of IPC(but have not initiated any action), which further strengthens this line of argument .The relevant extract from the said Order of the CIC is reproduced below;10. On perusal of this correspondence the Commission is constrained to conclude that Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Joint Secretary (AT&T) has obstructed, and Ms Anuradha Chagti and the DoPT as a public authority have knowingly violated and disobeyed the orders passed by the Commission knowing that the directions given by this Commission under Section 19(8) read with Section 19(7) are binding under the law. By their conduct, they have therefore committed offences punishable under Sections 166, 187 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, if proved, the possibility of action under Section 166 of IPC cannot be ruled out.RTI is a total problem solving mechanism and poor man's tool to solve his problems and not just record providing tool RTI Act is not just 2(f) .It provides transparency under 2(f) and4(1) (a) (b) (c) and Accountability under 4(1)(d). 4(1)(d) is check on whether public authority function under and as per 4(1) (a) (b) (c).RTI is a total problem solving mechanism and not just record providing tool.RTI will provide transparency and Accountability and this reduces the corruption. This information and reasons need to be provided to me as per Guide on RTIto Information Act 2005 published by the Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training (available here :http://rti.gov.in/RTICorner/Guideonrti.pdf) on page 12 and Para 9, following is stated: Providing Reasons for Decisions: The public authorities take various administrative and quasi-judicial decisions which affect the interests of certain persons. It is mandatory for the concerned public authority to provide reasons for such decisions to the affected persons. It may be done by using appropriate mode of communication .Attention is also invited towards the thread 'Affected Person ' under RTI ACT. In fact, it can be said that "Affected" refers back to an action. The"Affected Persons" are the ones who are affected by that action. The reasons need to be given to affected person and copy of that can be given to me under 2 f of RTI Act. The Co-Opeartion Department is THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d). Public authorities cannot take excuse of "missing files” for denying information under the RTI Act as such claims have no legality under the transparency law for withholding records, the Central Information Commission has held."Unless proved the record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by the public authority,” Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said in his order.The case came before the CIC after one Om Prakash sought to know information from Land and Building Department of Delhi Government regarding allotment of alternative plot in lieu of his land acquired by the Government.The Department admitted before the Commission that the relevant file is missing and it could not be traced even though the officers personally inspected room of the Land and Building Department after receiving the RTI application. The official representing the department said there is no possibility of retrieving the missing record .In a terse order, the Commissioner said loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, should invite criminal complaint against officials under section 201 of Indian Penal Code (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to seriousness of offence charged from seven years to 10 years and for life.) "Claim of file missing or not traceable has no legality as it is not recognised as exception by the RTI Act.