Available
also at :https://www.box.com/s/ab03d7ae691295c6c5ed
RTI
applicants face problem of language of reply, specially if information is
sought from other states. I had sought information from BBMP [municipal
corporation] Bengaluru and had requested that information be supplied in
English. However, I received reply in Kannada and I had to email to my relative
to translate it. I append below relevant extract from judgment of High Court of
Uttarakhand.
I
infer that information supplied in language which the applicant does not
understand is no information. PIO should supply either in English, Hindi or
State language of PIO as per choice of applicant.
Recently,
in Gujarat entire land acquisition process was declared invalid because notices
were published in Gujarati newspapers, but notices were in Hindi which most of
the affected farmers do not understand.
I
hope this will be useful to applicants.
Extract:
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 2130 OF 2009 (MS)
State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Versus
Decision
dated 27-03-2010
“It is a common misconception prevailing even today
that information must be given to citizens only when it is asked. This is not
the case. Most of the information has to be given by the public authority, suo
motu, under Section 4 of the Act which has to be periodically updated by
various means of communications, including internet so that the public should
have a minimum resort to the use of this Act for obtaining information. In
other words the endeavour of the public authority should be such that the
information should be readily available to citizens by available means of
communication, including internet and the other means so that they may not have
to request for information under Section 6 of the Act. Under Section 6 of the
Act only a formal request has to be made in writing to the public information
officer of a public authority which is duty bound to furnish the information
within a period of one month. All the same, before one resorts to Section 6
most of the information concerning the public authority has to be disseminated
to public in a manner, “which is easily accessible to the public”.
Now the intention of Legislature is absolutely clear
from the unambiguous composition of the language of the statute, referred
above. An information must be given to a citizen in the language, which he
understands. It is the legislative mandate that “information” must be
disseminated considering, inter alia, the “local language” ………… [Emphasis
added]
A
public authority should facilitate in the easy distribution of information to a
citizen. The provisions of the Right to Information Act read in the light of
the Constitution of India as well as the Consumer Protection Act speak loud and
clear that in the present case, State Consume Commission was duty bound to
furnish a translated copy of its judgment/order once such a requisition was
made to it.
The approach of the Consumer Commission, however, was
patently wrong. Not only was it in violation of sub-sections (3) and (4) to
Section 4 of the Act the approach of the petitioner defeats the objects and
goals for which the Right to Information Act was enacted. It is elementary that
the language of the State being Hindi not only the information was liable to be
given to respondent no. 3 in Hindi but more particularly when such an information
was sought in Hindi, it was even more necessary for the Consumer Commission to
have translated its order in Hindi and supplied the copy to the applicant.”
10072012________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment