State Chief Information Commissioner restrains Anjaneyulu from functioning as Secretary (FAC) of APIC
Escalating the friction between the State Government and the APIC, Mr. Basha asserted that the appointment made by Chief Secretary K. Vijayanand 'without consulting the APIC' contravenes both the Right to Information Act, 2005, and G.O. Ms. No. 122 dated September 6, 2017.
He emphasised that as per Section 16(6) of the RTI Act, the State Government was required to provide officers and staff to the SCIC and the State Information Commissioners to ensure efficient functioning, and in a manner that safeguarded the independence and autonomy of the Commission.
'This is the first time in the history of the APIC that the office of the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department (GAD), initiated the appointment process for the post of Secretary without consulting the APIC,' Mr. Basha said in the order.
'The APIC has always recruited its staff through the SCIC, with subsequent approval from the government,' he said.
The SCIC mentioned that the GAD had instructed departmental heads to nominate candidates for the post independently, a move that he described as a 'breach of long-standing conventions and administrative norms.'
Mr. Basha said though the office was 'shocked' by the development, it initially refrained from objecting in the hope that the GAD would adhere to the earlier practice by consulting the Commission.
He criticised the appointment of Mr. Anjaneyulu, who is already serving on deputation as Director, Insurance Medical Services, for being in clear violation of the 2017 G.O., which stipulated that the Secretary to APIC should only be appointed either on deputation or contract.
'The G.O. does not empower the government to assign Full Additional Charge to an officer already serving elsewhere on deputation,' Mr. Basha said.
He further said that Mr. Anjaneyulu visited the APIC office and claimed to have assumed charge as Secretary. However, upon being advised to submit a formal joining report and await clearance from the SCIC, he left without completing the process. The SCIC further alleged that Mr. Anjaneyulu had since been entering the Commission's premises unauthorisedly, reprimanding staff, and issuing directives in defiance of protocol.
'An officer cannot function independently as Secretary of APIC without the approval of the SCIC,' Mr. Basha asserted. 'The APIC cannot blindly allow any officer deployed by the government to assume charge unless it is satisfied with his or her suitability to serve in an autonomous and quasi-judicial institution,' he added.
Invoking Section 15(4) of the RTI Act, Mr. Basha underscored the Commission's responsibility to restrain any action that undermined the authority and dignity of the SCIC's office.
He also suggested the State Government to refrain from deputing officers who, he said, 'do not know how to conduct themselves in an autonomous and independent quasi-judicial authority like the APIC.'
The government was yet to react to the development. Meanwhile, officials at various levels in the government observed that the SCIC could not deny the appointment of the officers as the government had the mandate to provide staff for the functioning of the office.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
CIAL comes within the ambit RTI Act, says Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court held on Tuesday that Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) would come within the limits of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Replying to a petition filed by M.R. Ajayan, editor of Green Kerala News, CIAL had contended that it would not come under the RTI Act since it was not a public property. Apart from maintaining that the body would come under the RTI Act, a Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. also ordered that a public information officer (PIO) be appointed at the airport. The court fixed a 15-day timeline for CIAL to take steps to become completely RTI compliant and said that no request for extension of the timeline would be entertained. After perusing a history of cases in this regard, the court said it appeared that the managing director of CIAL had filed writ petitions and appeals without the approval of the agency's board of directors and the Chief Minister, who chairs the board, for hiding many important actions/decisions from the public and shareholders of CIAL. 'We deprecate such practices and direct the Chief Secretary [CS], who too is a board member, to take measures to prevent such instances,' the court said and directed the CS to file an action taken report within 15 days. Fine imposed Maintaining that the writ appeals were filed without proper authority, the court also imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on CIAL. The HC order came on appeals filed by CIAL against a single judge order in 2022 wherein the court had held that CIAL was a public authority within the confines of the RTI Act and was, therefore, amenable to obligations of disclosure of information to members of the public. The State Information Commission had in 2019 held that CIAL was bound to divulge necessary information and meet the statutory obligations under the RTI Act, including the appointment of a PIO.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court directs State government to submit Commission report on Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede
The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday directed the State government to submit in sealed cover the report of the John Michael Cunha Commission of Inquiry on the incident of stampede that occurred outside M. Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru on June 4. A Division Bench comprising Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M. Adiga issued the direction on a petition filed by DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt. Ltd., which has challenged the legality of the procedure adopted by the Commission in conducting the inquiry. Request by government Meanwhile, Senior Advocate B.K. Sampath Kumar, appearing for DNA Networks, told the bench that the function to facilitate the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) team on the steps of Vidhana Soudha on June 4 was also arranged by DNA Networks on the request made by the State government. It may be noted that DNA is the event manager for the Royal Challengers Sports Pvt. Ltd., which owns RCB cricket team. The petitioner-company has questioned the legality of the Commission's report while alleging that the Commission had violated the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry (COI), 1952, as no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was given to DNA Networks. Reputation impacted Mr. Kumar also contended that the reputation of the company has been severely affected due to the continued publication of the Commission's report in all forms of media, as it appears that the media has all the details of the Commission's report, even though the petitioner-company was not given a copy despite multiple requests. Meanwhile, the State Advocate-General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that DNA Network will have to approach the civil court against the media publications on the commission's report, while stating that the Government has nothing to do with publications in the media citing the Commission's report. DNA Network, in its petition, has claimed that the report of the Commission was leaked to the media but not given to the company, while pointing out that even the applications filed by it under the RTI Act have also been rejected.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Can't monitor CM Relief Fund disbursement but hope there's no deviation from its purpose: HC
Mumbai: Bombay High Court has said it cannot monitor disbursement of money from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, but it hopes and trusts the same is utilised strictly for the purpose for which it is operated and there is no deviation. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, in the order on July 31, noted transactions of the fund can always be accessed by members of the public by seeking information under the Right to Information Act. "We cannot monitor the operation of the CMRF. We, however, hope and trust that the contributions made to the CMRF are utilised strictly for the objectives and purpose for which the fund is operated and that there is no deviation in any case," the court said. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The HC disposed of a public interest litigation filed by city-based NGO 'Public Concern for Governance Trust', claiming the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was being used for purposes other than what it was established for. The plea said the CMRF should be used solely and exclusively to assist victims of natural calamities, disasters and upheavals, as was envisaged at the time of its formation. The government opposed the plea, saying that while initially the CMRF was set up to assist victims of natural calamities and disasters, its aims and objectives were expanded in November 2001. This was done in view of the increasing demands for victims of incidents other than natural calamities. The petition also sought the HC to form a committee to manage disbursement of money from the CMRF and also for an audit to be conducted. It alleged that the CMRF is being used by successive chief ministers for other reasons such as construction of cultural halls, sponsoring teams for tournaments, granting personal loans to political, social and cultural bodies and so on. The government said providing assistance for promotion of cultural and sporting activities was one of the objectives of the CMRF. The CMRF was being operated in a transparent manner and information related to its transactions could be obtained through the Right to Information Act, the government added. The high court in its order said it was a matter of policy decision of the state government to sanction and widen the CMRF's objectives. The petitioner cannot insist that the CMRF must be operated for the original purpose alone and there is no legal prohibition on widening of the objective of the CMRF, the judges said. The HC also refused to accept the petitioner's allegation of non-maintenance of CMRF's transparency and said the accounts of the trust are audited and income tax returns are filed.
