According to Justice P.C. Mishra, the provision for Right to Inspection as mentioned in Clause 3a of Orissa Draft Bill is likely to be abused extensively by the litigant citizens and would serve no purpose. He strongly pleaded for deletion of this provision from the Draft Bill.
However Ms. Biraj Swain of CARE, Orissa observed that the word 'inspection' if found unpalatable and objectionable, may be replaced by the word 'perusal'. But a common citizen's right to check and verify a public register as to whether the entries on payments, for instance, shown against a person's name have been correctly made or not. In reply Justice Mishra conceded to the point made by Ms.Swain but suggested that instead of the information-seeker handling the register by himself, the concerned officer should inform him about the information asked for. Otherwise if a common man is allowed to handle the register by himself, the said register may be tampered with.
Then Ms. Biraj Swain cited the instance of Delhi Act of 2001 where a man of a public office is required to be deputed to be present and facilitate the inspection of the public documents by a common citizen. The Government of Orissa might do well by replicating here the arrangement made by the Delhi Government while implementing the Act. But in no case should the provision for a citizen's Right to perusal of a public document be scraped.
Mr. Madhusudan Panda, Advocate Orissa High Court strongly objected to Justice P.C. Mishra's reservation against the provision of inspection of works, and taking samples of material as mentioned in the clause 2d of the Draft Bill. According to Mr. Panda, in view of rampant corruption by the nexus of bureaucrats and contractors, the provision for inspection and sample examination has been legitimately incorporated. Justice Mishra in reply said that there are other laws in the country and State to get the public works inspected and material samples thereof examined. The law on Right to Information need not be necessarily made too much complicated and impracticable by adding such provisions thereto. Mr. Panda, however, did not agree to the reply of Justice Mishra. And thus the dialogue remained inconclusive.
Mr. Chitta Behera, an RTI activist did also put up objection from a legal angle to Justice Mishra's reservation against a citizen's Right to Inspection. Mr.Behera said, the Evidence Act 1872 in its Section 76 allows any person the Right to Inspect a public document. So the Orissa Draft Bill shouldn't be criticized for its provision for Right to Inspection, which is a time-worn provision in the Statutes of the country. In reply Justice Mishra first said that there was no such provision for right to inspection in the Evidence Act. But when Mr.Behera reasserted that such a provision in fact existed, Justice Mishra explained that only when a litigation was pending in a court of law, then only the Evidence Act comes into operation, otherwise not. Moreover only in the context of a continuing litigation that the Court may order the inspection of a public document. However, Mr. Behera didn't agree to the explanation given by Justice Sri Mishra.
Mr. Sourya Sunder Dash, Advocate who was chairing the Session observed that as far as he knew, under the existing rules, one can approach the Registrar of Orissa High Court and apply for inspection of any case record by paying a nominal fee of less than rupees 3 or so. The applicant shall be allowed to inspect the concerned records in the presence of the Deputy Registrar or Registrar himself. At this point, Justice Mishra added, only in the context of a litigation and as party to the litigation.
There after no body raised any further objection to the provision of Right to Inspection as contained in the Orissa Draft Bill. So the consensus of the house seemed to be in favor of retaining the provision for Right to Inspection in the Draft Bill, though it was admitted by some speakers that the litigants and vested interests might abuse and misuse this provision. To avoid such unpleasant situations, the concerned office personnel may be required to be present while the inspection of a public record would be carried out by a citizen.