Education scam
SHILLONG: Chief Minister Mukul Sangma during a recent news conference may have banked on the use of Right to Information Act (RTI) to maintain transparency and accountability, but officials of the education department do not seem to follow this example when it comes to the RTI queries related to the education scam.
Instead of providing information, senior officials of the education department seem to be determined to deny information to RTI applicants citing whimsical grounds. They apparently exercise the ‘Right to reject information’.
Moreover, there is an alleged interference on the part of the higher ups in the Education department to deny information though this goes against the spirit of the RTI Act.
Officials of the Education department have found out ways and means including taking cover under some clauses of RTI to deny information to an RTI applicant who wanted to get a copy of the report of High Level Scrutiny Committee (HLSC) on education scam recently.
The RTI applicant, who does not wish to be named, had also sought information on the names of the officials against whom disciplinary action is being taken for their involvement in the alleged scam.
After the Public Information Officer B S Sohliya(Joint Secretary, Education) denied information to the RTI applicant on two occasions, the latter made an appeal to the higher official, Commissioner and Secretary, Education E P Kharbhih, who is the designated Appellate Authority under RTI Act.
Kharbhih too denied information to the applicant by saying since there is an April 21 order of Supreme Court which made HLSC non-functional, he would not be able to provide the copy of the report of HLSC. He also cited that the matter is sub-judice.
The Education department dilly dallied since February till May this year citing one reason or other for not providing information.
After the RTI applicant sought the information on matters related to the education scam and also the copy of HLSC report in February this year, the first reply of Public Information Officer Sohliya on March 11 was that “copy of the report is being sought from the Higher Authorities. Therefore furnishing of the same is delayed due to department scrutiny on the matter”.
Strangely, in the second reply on March 26, the Public Information Officer cited Section 8 (1)(H) of RTI Act for denial of information to the applicant.
The Section 8 (1)(H) of RTI Act only says that ” information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders cannot be divulged”, but in the case of copy of the report of HLSC is concerned, it is a closed matter and there was no further compiling of report. Moreover, the report of HLSC as such, if provided, does not in any way hamper the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders. In fact it was last year that HLSC submitted the report to the Government.
When the RTI applicant cited these points before the Appellate Authority EP Kharbhih in the form of first appeal made on April 10 through a letter, a hearing which was fixed on May 6 rejected the appeal of the RTI applicant.
The Appellate Authority also cited the order of the Supreme Court made on April 21 this year which made the formation of HLSC non functional, to deny the information sought.
However, the order of Supreme came much later as the first RTI query was made in February this year and the first appeal before Kharbhih was on April 10.
Kharbhih also cited again the Section 8 (1)(H) of RTI Act to deny information by saying that matter is sub judice and investigation is going on.
However, the questions is that if the Supreme Court in its order of April 21 made the formation and subsequent report of HLSC on education scam non functional, there should not be any worry on the part of the officials of the education officials to provide a copy of the report to the RTI applicant as the report will not have any use for the department. In this context, the report which is already gathering dust in the department does not fall under the category of sub-judice.
Moreover, the report as such has nothing to do with any inquiry or investigation by the police or the disciplinary action by the concerned education department.