Education scam
SHILLONG: The misuse of the RTI Act came to fore when a query on the report of the High Level Scrutiny Committee (HLSC) on the education scam was denied twice, one by the Public Information Officer and subsequently by the Appellate Authority of the Education Department.
The denial of information indicates that the Government is in no mood to release the report of High Level Scrutiny Committee on education scam even under the RTI Act.
According to sources, the Government is trying to shield the HLSC report as it exonerated the then Education Minister Ampareen Lyngdoh whose name was quoted by former Education department official JD Sangma before the CBI. Sangma had said that tampering of the mark sheets of the deserving candidates was carried out as per Ampareen’s instruction. Moreover, the HLSC also segregated the tainted and the non tainted job applicants which will pave way for the appointment of deserving candidates shortly.
The Government, meanwhile, decided to take action against Sangma.
Civil Society Women’s Organization (CSWO) president Agnes Kharshiing, who is following up the education scam, filed an RTI to get the report of the HLSC, but in vain as the Public Information Officer , BS Sohliya informed that the report was not available with the education department.
Unhappy over the reply, Kharshiing made an appeal before the Appellate Authority L. R Sangma who also told the information seeker that the report cannot be given as it is protected under section 8 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Section 8(h) speaks about the denial of “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders”.
However, the report of the HLSC on education scam has nothing do with investigation as the Committee is not an investigative agency. Moreover, with the handing over of the report to the Government, the task entrusted with the Scrutiny Committee is over and the report has become a public document which is accessible under the RTI Act.
The Central Information Commissioner in an earlier case had pulled up an official for not disclosing information under section 8 (h) which was used as a pretext to deny information.
Moreover, the Delhi High Court in a related order had stated that “the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.” According to Kharshiing, the report prepared by the Committee is in the larger interest of the public at large and hence it should be disclosed.
She has also decided to make an appeal before the State Information Commissioner.