news details |
|
|
| Tripura shows the way | | |
In a landmark decision, the Tripura State Information Commission has ended the regime of secrecy surrounding the appraisal and the promotion process in government. The two Commissioners agreed that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and the recommendations of the Departmental Promotions Committee (DPC) may be disclosed to the officer concerned upon request.
The secrecy regime governing access to ACRs and DPC meeting minutes was a creation of the British much like the modern bureaucracy. Many bureaucrats baulk at the thought of divulging their evaluatory remarks as they are fearful of reprisals from their aggrieved juniors. Transparency, they argue, would discourage senior officers from expressing their frank opinion freely which, in turn, would adversely affect cordial relations between senior and junior officers thereby ruining the cohesiveness of the administration.
With the passing of the RTI Act, ACRs and DPC minutes suddenly became “personal and private” information as the government wanted the legitimacy of an exemption under this law for withholding their disclosure. The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld this practice when it ruled in several cases that the remarks of the authority superior in rank to the officer being evaluated ought not to be disclosed.
The Tripura Information Commission has now set a high standard for access to these “confidential” documents something from which the CIC shied away. It all began in Tripura with an IAS officer applying for copies of all ACRs pertaining to his own performance and inspection of the DPC recommendations relating to all IAS and non-IAS officers of his batch. The Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned did not bother to pass any order on his information request — a typical administrative reaction that many a citizen is familiar with.
Thereafter, the officer filed an appeal in the same department against the PIO’s inaction. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the grounds that ACRs and DPC meeting minutes are of personal nature and a “larger public interest does not justify their disclosure in this case.” The legal opinion quoted in support of this position was provided by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice which basically reiterated, earlier in February that such information is covered by the exemption provided for personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Tripura Commissioners have recognised that the very nature of ACRs and DPC recommendations requires them to be made public. They have argued that the service records of a public servant are maintained for his/her services for the public administration, in public interest, and therefore cannot be described as personal information. The Tripura Information Commission’s decision is a major step in the direction of ending secrecy in the government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
