According to Justice P.C. Mishra, the only Governmental departments and agencies and undertakings run by the Government should be declared as Competent Authorities for the purpose of this Act, since the inclusion of all sorts of non-government and private organizations at the present stage shall practically render the implementation of the Act impossible. Mr. Bijay Nayak, ex-MLA also supported this view on the ground that most of the private organizations are not in a position to comply with the requisite norms for documentation and dissemination of information to the members of the public, as and when required.
However the majority of the participants including representatives of CHRI, New Delhi, Ms. Manipadma Jena, Free-lance Journalist, Mr.Sashikanta of Agragami, Ms. Sunita Patnaik of CYSD, Ms. Abharani Choudhury of Orissa Patita Uddhar Samiti (in her paper) and Mr. Chitta Behera (in his paper) have supported the Draft Bill for its provision for inclusion of private bodies and individuals dealing with matters of public interest. Their arguments were firstly that private bodies like Union Carbide ( which was responsible for Bhopal Gas Tragedy) need be made accountable for disclosing information relating to their affairs which are of Public Interest, and secondly that in a period of increasing withdrawal of State from public arena and growing role of private bodies, the latter's conduct be made more and more transparent before the public.
Moreover Mr. Rabindranath Sahoo in his written statement and verbal talk as well stressed the need for declaring 'Political Parties' to be Competent Authorities for the purpose of the Act. The selected excerpts from the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, which were read out at the start of the Consultation did recommend the need for transparency of political parties before the citizens.
Mr. Swarajya Biswal, Government Advocate at State Administrative Tribunal, while supporting the provision for inclusion of private bodies, did specifically suggest to include the self-help cooperatives, a new legal entity created under the newly enacted Orissa Self-Help Cooperatives Act, 2001, which is different from the Cooperative Society of the previous kind.
Mr. Ashis Senapati, Advocate and Free-lance Journalist and Project Director of Project Swarajya, Kendrapara wanted the inclusion of media organizations both print and electronic under the definition of competent authorities, since such a provision would make them more responsible in publishing news and views in their respective media.
Mr. Puranjan Ray, Senior Advocate argued for inclusion of all the three wings of the State, executive, legislative and judiciary under the purview of Competent Authorities as provided under the Clause 2 of the Central Bill and as also recommended by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution.
It was pointed out by Mr. Chitta Behera that the Freedom of Information Bill 2000 now pending in Parliament for discussion, in its Section 2 (Definitions) Sub-clause B makes Speaker of the House of the People, the Chief Justice of India, the President of India, so to say, the heads of the three organs of nation State, legislative, judiciary and executive as Competent Authorities for the purpose of the Act. Moreover, the said Central Bill while defining 'appropriate Government' in Clause 1 (a) means all public authorities, 'established, constituted, owned, substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly or controlled by' the Central Government and State Governments. Such a definition, if read along with the aforesaid Sub-clause (b) would cover the entire gamut of public authorities including the local self-government bodies ( Panchayatiraj institutions and Muncipalities etc.), political parties, and so-called private bodies like Cooperatives, Societies ( NGOs), Trusts, Media organizations, Companies and even Contractors undertaking the public works.
Moreover, there is an imperative need for providing definitions of important expressions occurring frequently in the Draft Bill on Orissa Right to Information Act 2002. As Mr. Raicharan Das in his written paper and verbal speech pointed out, the definitions of important expressions along with the provisions of a State Act should be inconsistence with those of the Constitution and other Central Acts and Statutes, otherwise the provisions of the State Act may be found repugnant to those of the Central Acts or Statutes, in the event of which the former shall be rendered invalid to the extent of the repugnancy.
In view of this the Chapter on Definitions in Clause 2 of the Orissa Draft Bill need be reworked in accordance with the corresponding provisions under Clause 2 of the Freedom of Information Bill 2000.
The proposed Orissa Draft Bill on RTI in order that it be brought in consonance with the Central Bill, as it should be in case of an item like information included in the Concurrent List, should in its Clause 2 ( Definitions) redefine the 'appropriate Government' and 'Competent Authorities' as follows:
In view of the redefining of 'appropriate Government' and 'Competent Authority' as mentioned above, there is now an indispensable need for introducing two corollary expressions, namely 'Public Authority' and 'Public Information Officer' so as to clear all confusion from the course of working out the Act in practice. The Orissa Draft Bill in its present form also suffers from some glaring confusion. For instance, in its Clause 3 ( Right to Information) the Draft Bill says, "every citizen shall have right to obtain information from a Competent authority", whereas in Clause 9 ( Penalties), it says, "Any person responsible for providing any information shall be liable for furnishing the information.." Again, in Clause 7 ( Appeals), the Draft Bill says, "... any person who has not received any order from the Competent Authority... may appeal to the next higher authority.." . Question arises, 'Who is the next higher authority' ? Is he not a Competent Authority himself?
Public Authority:
It means any authority or body established or constituted
Public Information Officer:
Mr. Rai Charan Das, Mr. Chitta Behera ( in his paper) and Mr. Shasikanta (Agragamee) and following them the whole house felt that the listing and notification of the competent authorities should not be left to the discretion of the government and to an uncertain future. Even if the Act is passed, it can't be implemented even for a day in absence of the crucial information as to who are the competent authorities, and whom a citizen should approach for the purpose of this Act.
Under the circumstances, the Orissa Draft Bill should redefine the expressions 'appropriate Government' and 'competent authorities', introduce new expressions like 'Public Authority' and 'Public Information Officer' as aforementioned, and delete the expression in Clause 2a about the notification of competent authorities in the Official Gazette.