RTI UNDERTAKES THE GAMES PANEL, IOA AND SANSKRITI

1. In a verdict of farreaching consequence, the Delhi High Court justice S Ravindra Bhat has considerably expanded the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by asking the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), the Commonwealth Games Organising Commitee (OC) and the upmarket Sanskriti School to disseminate information and depute a public information officer (PIO).

2. Justice Bhat chiefly relied upon the fact that all the three non-government and autonomous organisations received substantial financing from the central government, that is public funds. The RTI Act recognizes that non-state actors may have responsibilities of disclosing information which would be useful and necessary for the people they serve as it furthers the process of empowerment, assures transparency and makes democracy responsive and meaningful.

3. He also dismissed the argument that absence of government control over an organisation allows it relief from accountability, holding it to be irrelevant to decide whether they are a public authority or not. The court conceded that the school and the two sports federations were autonomous and free from government control , but pointed out that for smooth functioning, these bodies were either seeking huge amounts from the government or concessions in one form or the other. For example, in IOAs case the high court agreed it noticed no state or public involvement in its day-to-day functioning but noted how IOA is the national face of the Olympic movement in India ... its word determines the fate of the sport and sportsmen and its approval is essential for any sport in India to be part of the movement.

4. Relying on balance sheets provided to it by the central government, the HC also reminded the association how it was funded by the government whenever its athletes and delegates travelled in the country and abroad. Similarly, the OCs contention that it was a temporary body in existence for the limited purpose of organising the 2010 Games, failed to move the court. Instead, the judge said the central government had committed a sum of Rs 767 crore to it (out of which nearly 350 crore was paid) due to which a citizen had the right to know how its being utilized.

5. As regards Sanskriti School, the HC agreed with the reasoning of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that on account of it receiving grants to the tune of Rs 24 crore from various central ministeries, concessional land in prime areas of Delhi it ought to be treated as a public authority under the RTI Act. All the three organisations had separately challenged the ruling of the CIC declaring them to be under the ambit of the RTI Act.

6. The move is expected to open the floodgates of pointed RTI queries directed against these three bodies, seeking information about their management, grants and administration. The judgment will have an impact in injecting an element of accountability not just in the IOA and the OC, but in all the sports federations.

BABU'S ASSETS COME UNDER SCRUTINY

1. In a landmark order, Central Information Commission, Shailesh Gandhi has said that disclosure of information such as assets of a public servant, routinely collected by the public authority, should be made available to the public under the Right to Information Act.

2. Passing the order in a case involving an officer with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, he held that such disclosure could not be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual and therefore, it should be made public under the Act.

3. With the ruling officers have been put on par with politicians as well as judges of Supreme Court who recently, bowing to pressure, agreed to let people peek into their material possessions.

4. The case came up for hearing with CIC after an RTI applicant's query asking for details of assets and liabilities of the deputy health officer of MCD was rejected by both the PIO and the appellate authority.

5. UP resident Rajbir Singh had asked for details of immovable property declared by Ashok Rawat, deputy health officer with MCD. He had also asked for details of assets which the officer had purchased for more than Rs 10,000 during his service with date of disclosure made to the department.

6. But both the PIO and first appellate authority rejected the query under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which says information can be exempted under this section if it relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

7. "Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for `personal' information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorization, all these are public activities.The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity," the order said.

8. The CIC said there will only be a few exceptions to this rule, possibly relating to information obtained by a public authority by using extraordinary powers such as through a raid or phone-tapping. "Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified," the CIC order said.

9. The commission also quoted the Supreme Court order which had ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. "If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their property details, it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants should be be disclosed. Hence, the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied in this case," Gandhi said.

UNJUSTIFIED CRITICSM OF RELIGION NOT ALLOWED

In a significant ruling regarding a book on Islam titled "Islam - A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims", authored by R V Bhasin, a Mumbai based advocate , a three-judge bench of the Bombay high court on Wednesday held that :

1. In India Bona fide criticism of any religion -- be it Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other -- is permissible under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and that a book cannot be banned on those grounds alone.

2. But the book contained an "aggravated form of criticism made with a malicious and deliberate intention" to outrage the feelings of Muslims.

3. The bench, comprising Justices Ranjana Desai, D Y Chandrachud and R S Mohite, while delivering the landmark verdict on Wednesday, said "in our country, everything is open to criticism and religion is no exception. Freedom of expression covers criticism of religion and no person can be sensitive about it. Healthy criticism provokes thought, encourages debate and helps us evolve. But criticism cannot be malicious and must not lead to creating ill-will between different communities... (it) must lead to sensible dialogue. The courts must strike a balance between the guaranteed freedom and permissible restrictions, "a difficult task".

4. The book since 2003 had been in circulation for four years before the state felt the need to ban it for "several derogatory and false statements about Muslim religion, the community, Mohammed Paigambar and Muslim priests".

5. Bhasin later told TOI that he would go to the Supreme Court in appeal. "Freedom of speech cannot be blocked on interpretation," he said. Also, unless a book gives rise immediately to a present and sudden danger of disrupting communal or societal peace, its ban cannot be justified.