Order on RTI applicability on governor’s office deferred

PANAJI: The Goa state information commission (GSIC) on Monday deferred it’s order on the applicability of the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the governor’s office, and sought clarifications from the parties concerned in view of a Supreme Court order passed in January. GSIC is likely to deliver its verdict on October 12.

The commission had earlier decided to pass an order on Monday.But, the chief information commissioner (CIC) sought clarifications from the parties, in view of the SC’s January order regarding the issue of applicability of RTI Act to the Goa governor’s office.
The apex court had held that the high court judgement holding Goa governor as a public authority is not to be enforced.
“Since the matters have become infructuous, the impugned judgement is not to be enforced and not to be treated as a precedent for any other case. Question of law is kept open,” the apex court had said.
In March 2011, then state information commissioner Motilal Keny had passed an order stating that the governor was a public authority who came within the ambit of the RTI Act. Following this, on November 14, 2011, the high court of Bombay at Goa pronounced that the governor was indeed a public authority, who has to provide information, under the provisions of the RTI Act. The matter was then challenged in the SC.
On Monday, CIC Prashant Tendolkar sought to know what the SC meant when it stated the question of law has been kept open. He also sought clarity on the commission’s jurisdiction to pass an order on whether Goa Raj Bhavan is a public authority. The SC also did not quash and set aside the HC order, he pointed out.
Tendolkar said, the SC order stated that the question of law has been kept open, but wanted to know who has to decide the matter — the commission, high court or Supreme Court?
Advocate Deep Shirodkar, representing the secretary to the governor, said it should be interpreted that the decision can be taken, as and when it comes up before any authority, and stated that the commission can go ahead and decide the matter. “In view of the SC’s observations, the HC judgement cannot be relied on as a precedent,” Shirodkar argued.
Complainant Aires Rodrigues stated there initially was a SC stay on the HC order. When a petition is dismissed by the SC, the stay is vacated and the HC judgement is to be followed, Rodrigues argued.