In a recent case, the Right to Information watchdog has held that it is the duty of the public authority to permit the inmates of jail to prove his innocence as per the cardinal principles of criminal justice.
In the case in Ravinder Kumar v. Tihar Jail last month, the Central Information Commission found that there was a significant public interest behind the RTI application (of Ravinder Kumar, a life convict in dowry death case) as accused should be allowed every opportunity to prove his innocence as per the cardinal principles of criminal justice. Life convict/appellant in this case believed that his medical records would help him to prove that with visual deficiency he could not have killed his wife as alleged. But this opportunity was denied by the jail authorities by not certifying the medial records at first instance, destroying the records at second instance and finally denying him permission to attend the second appeal. The appellant could show that because of denial by Superintendent, Central Jail-2, he could not attend second appeal on 30-12-2015. The PIO/Tihar Jail did not inform the Commission about the refusal of permission, which amounts to suppression of information.
The appellant was a life-convict in a dowry death case since 2-6-2004. He believed that he had some visual difficulty at the time of entry into the jail –this was mentioned in his admission health card – which would help him to prove his innocence in court. He wanted copies of his medical records dated 3.6.2005, including OPD orders and attested papers from the date of his admission into the jail till 13.9.2010.
The appellant submitted that he could not be present on 30-12-2015 as custodial parole was denied. He alleged that the denial was maintained only because he filed RTI requests with the jail. The appellant complained to the Commission that because of this attitude many other prisoners were not in a position to file or defend their RTI cases.
The appellant contended: He along with his parents and brothers were jailed for dowry death. His wife was killed in a dacoity, but his family was implicated by his in-laws. Since all his family members were lodged in jail, there was none to help him for information, hence he had to approach under RTI Act.
As the information sought was related to life and liberty, it should have been given within 48 hours. In fact, he got all medical documents in 2010 under RTI but those papers were neither attested nor certified. He again applied on 2-1-2015 for certified copies.
Another issue brought before the Commission was destruction of record after RTI application was filed. Appellant presented documents which showed that the DCP, North District, Civil Lines destroyed medical record of the appellant vide order dated 17-2-2015, 14 days after the receipt of the RTI application on 3-2-2015. It must be noted that the destruction of records during pendency of RTI application attracts penalty under Section 20.
Appellant could show that Mr Vijender Kumar Yadav, IPS, Addl. DCP-I, North District, who was also the PIO, who stated to have received RTI application Dt. 3-2- 2015 addressed to him, (which was received in his office on 5-2-2015), was the same officer, who in his capacity as Additional DCP issued an order for the destruction of medical record of the appellant, which proved he deliberately obstructed information. The Commission noted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Union Of India Vs. Vishwas Bhamburkar [2013(297)ELT500(Del.)] observed:
“6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.
7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the willful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”
Moreover, the Information watchdog also pointed out that this same commission held in Shri Ashok Kr. Dixit vs. Delhi Technology University, GNCTD, Delhi [CIC/SA/C/2013/000013]:
“5. Record cannot be destroyed after RTI application is filed, even if it outlived the time prescribed under weeding out policy, and if destroyed like that, it would invite the penalty under section 20 of RTI Act. …”
The Commission, therefore, directed Mr. Vijender Kumar Yadav to show why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for destruction of medical records of the appellant when the RTI request was pending with them, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission directed the Superintendent, Central Jail-2 to initiate the efforts to find the medical records of the appellant if at all left out of the destruction process in the medical record room. In the alternative, the Commission required the DCP/Civil Lines to search for any parallel entries of medical records orthe bills for medical reimbursement or vouchers for payment made to the appellant or any other related document pertaining to medical history of the appellant, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission finally concluded by saying that it was the duty of the public authority to permit the inmates of jail to defend second appeal, or make alternative arrangements like video conferencing and directed the DGP (Prisons) to show cause why suitable compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for having been subjected to the acts delaying, denying and destroying the medical records by the public authority.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
