SHILLONG: That ‘ignorance is bliss’ has been proven untrue for a secondary school here in the city.
False claim of ignorance of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, has cost Gandhi Buniyadi Secondary School (GBSS) dearly. Located in the Pynthorumkhrah area of the city, the school has been fined Rs 10,000 by the Meghalaya Information Commission for not sharing information with an RTI applicant claiming that the materials sought for is old and is exempted by the act.
According to documents made available, a city-based advocate, Aneeta Synrem, filed an RTI application dated March 20 this year in which she has asked for the number of candidates along with their names, guardians’ names, roll numbers who had appeared in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate selection test from 1990 to 1996 from the headmaster/public information officer (PIO) of GBSS, VN Pandit. The headmaster in his reply dated April 4 to the RTI refused to furnish the information on the ground that the information sought for relates to more than 20 years by stating that under Section 7 read with Sub-Section 3 of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, he is not mandated to furnish the same.
An aggrieved Synrem filed an appeal on April 16 before the first appellate authority, District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills, RM Pariat who in his order dated May 22 directed the headmaster to furnish the information within 10 days.
The headmaster in his reply dated May 29 furnished an incomplete reply, which does not contain the information relating to the year 1990 and 1991 and has also demanded an exorbitant fee of Rs 250 for supply of photocopies of 48 pages (A4 size copies) in violation of Rule 4(1)(a) of the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost Rules), 2012, where it is stated that the charge of A4 size photocopies is Rs 2.
Once again, Synrem filed an appeal on June 12 before the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills, followed by another complaint under Section 18(1)(b)/18(1)(c)/18(1)(d)/18(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2015, with the chief information commissioner (CIC), Meghalaya, PBO Warjri.
The registered complaint, MIC/Complaint/19/2018/51 was heard on November 16 and the CIC in his order had imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 at the rate of Rs 250 per day for 40 days with effect from April 20 being the date after the information would have become due on May 29 — the date for providing the information.
Meanwhile, during the hearing of the matter at the Meghalaya Information Commission several falsities came to the fore.
To a query, the headmaster replied that he could not provide the information because it was old and he was unable to trace the records while stating further that since the seeking for records were above 20 years he believed that he is exempted from providing the information including that the school was not a centre for selection test in the years 1990 and 1991.
However, the commission pointed out that information above that number of years has to be given more liberally and exceptions are only for subjects, which fall under Section 8 (1)(a)(c) and (i) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In his attempt to justify his failure, the Headmaster / PIO repeatedly stated about his unfamiliarity and ignorance of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Regarding demand for exorbitant fees for providing information, the headmaster/PIO submitted that it was a mistake made by him due to his ignorance to which he was pointed out as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act states that no such charges can be made if the information is not given within 30 days.
Taking exception, the commission pointed out that the replies of the Headmaster / PIO to the show cause notice issued by it on October 10 this year however reflected a very good understanding on the part of the PIO of the provisions and requirements of the various sections of the RTI Act and Rules and that his replies to the questions, before the commission, in person contradict his claims.
The commission while expressing its inability to accept his claims of ignorance in relation with the two replies that he made in response to the show cause notice dated October 24, 2018 and November 15, 2018, in its order stated that both these replies reflected a very good understanding of the RTI Act and his replies to the questions from the commission in person was an attempt to mislead it. On his repeated claim of ignorance, the commission says, “…his detailed replies to the commission dated 24/10/2018 and 15/11/2018 reflect an unusually good understanding of the RTI Act and Rules, an understand which is rarely seen among other PIOs.”
