Governor K Sankaranarayanan, who is complying with the RTI Act in Maharashtra refused to comply with the same in Goa (as he hold both posts) like his predecessor Dr Sidhu. The High Court, in a judgment on 14th November, however declared that the Governor does come under the ambit of the RTI Act in Goa as well
In a major embarrassment to the Goa Raj Bhavan, the Bombay High Court at Goa on Monday ruled that the Governor of Goa is a public authority and come within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Pronouncing the much-awaited judgment on 14th November, the High Court held that the Governor enjoyed no immunity from the RTI Act and the public information officer (PIO) at the Goa Raj Bhavan is duty bound to furnish information sought under the Act.
Earlier in August, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa comprising Justice DG Karnik and Justice FM Reis had reserved the judgment after hearing final arguments in the petition filed by Goa Raj Bhavan.
The Governor of Goa had refused to furnish information sought by Adv Aires Rodrigues under the RTI Act claiming that he is not a "public authority".
Adv Rodrigues had sought details of action taken by the Governor on the complaints filed by him against the Goa's Advocate General Subodh Kantak, under the RTI Act. Adv Rodrigues had also sought copies of noting sheets and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against the Advocate General.
The Goa Raj Bhavan in its petition before the High Court had contended that the Governor not being a "public authority" does not come within the purview of the RTI Act. The Raj Bhavan had also contended that the Goa State Information Commission had not been properly constituted and that the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) could not have heard matters in the absence of another Information Commissioner.
Motilal Keny, SCIC of Goa, on 31st March, had ruled that the Goa Governor was a "public authority" and did come within the ambit of the RTI Act.
The High Court in its order however held that the Goa State Information Commission has to be a multi-member body and could not function with just the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).
Former Chief Justice of India JS Verma, who was also former Governor had publicly opined that the Goa Governor was a public authority and did come within the ambit of the RTI Act. A similar view was also strongly expressed by noted RTI Activist Aruna Roy while she was in Goa last month.
Mr Sankaranarayanan took over as Governor of Goa in September 2011. Ironically, he has been complying with the RTI Act as Governor of Maharashtra (as he holds this post too) but in Goa like his predecessor Dr SS Sidhu, he refused to comply by the Act.
This was evident when Adv Rodrigues sought details of total expenditure incurred in 2011 by the Goa Governor's official and their unofficial visits out of the state. He was also denied information when he asked details of President of India, Pratibha Patil's visit to Goa in January this year, which the Goa Governor's declared as a personal visit. However, when Adv Rodrigues asked for the same information under RTI from the Governor of Maharashtra's office, he got detailed answers which proved that the President indeed had been on an official visit and Rs15 lakh were spent from the taxpayers' money.
Box:
Chronology of the case
29 November 2010: Adv Rodrigues had sought information from Goa Raj Bhavan under RTI, details of action taken on the complaints made by him to the Governor of Goa against Advocate General of Goa Subodh Kantak. He had also sought copies of file notings and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against the Advocate General.
30 November 2010: Goa Raj Bhavan refused to furnish the information sought.
21 December 2010: Adv Rodrigues filed a complaint against the Raj Bhavan with the State Information Commission
22 December 2010: State Information Commission sent a notice directing the then Governor Dr SS Sidhu to personally appear before the State Chief Information Commissioner on 4 January 2011.
23 December 2010: Adv Rodrigues filed a caveat before the Goa bench of the BombayHigh Court against Governor Dr Sidhu anticipating that he might move the High Courtagainst the notice issued to him by the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) directing him to personally appear before the GSIC in connection with a complaint filed against him for not complying with the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
31 March 2011: Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Motilal Keny held that Governor is a Public Authority and should furnish information sought by Adv Rodrigues
22 April 2011: Governor of Goa Dr Sidhu took his battle against the Right to Information Act to the Bombay High Court.
August 2011: The Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice DG Karnik and Justice FM Reis heard the Raj Bhavan's petition for over four days and reserved the Judgment.
14 November 2011: Bombay High Court rules that Goa Governor's office comes under the ambit of the RTI Act.
In a major embarrassment to the Goa Raj Bhavan, the Bombay High Court at Goa on Monday ruled that the Governor of Goa is a public authority and come within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Pronouncing the much-awaited judgment on 14th November, the High Court held that the Governor enjoyed no immunity from the RTI Act and the public information officer (PIO) at the Goa Raj Bhavan is duty bound to furnish information sought under the Act.
Earlier in August, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa comprising Justice DG Karnik and Justice FM Reis had reserved the judgment after hearing final arguments in the petition filed by Goa Raj Bhavan.
The Governor of Goa had refused to furnish information sought by Adv Aires Rodrigues under the RTI Act claiming that he is not a "public authority".
Adv Rodrigues had sought details of action taken by the Governor on the complaints filed by him against the Goa's Advocate General Subodh Kantak, under the RTI Act. Adv Rodrigues had also sought copies of noting sheets and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against the Advocate General.
The Goa Raj Bhavan in its petition before the High Court had contended that the Governor not being a "public authority" does not come within the purview of the RTI Act. The Raj Bhavan had also contended that the Goa State Information Commission had not been properly constituted and that the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) could not have heard matters in the absence of another Information Commissioner.
Motilal Keny, SCIC of Goa, on 31st March, had ruled that the Goa Governor was a "public authority" and did come within the ambit of the RTI Act.
The High Court in its order however held that the Goa State Information Commission has to be a multi-member body and could not function with just the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).
Former Chief Justice of India JS Verma, who was also former Governor had publicly opined that the Goa Governor was a public authority and did come within the ambit of the RTI Act. A similar view was also strongly expressed by noted RTI Activist Aruna Roy while she was in Goa last month.
Mr Sankaranarayanan took over as Governor of Goa in September 2011. Ironically, he has been complying with the RTI Act as Governor of Maharashtra (as he holds this post too) but in Goa like his predecessor Dr SS Sidhu, he refused to comply by the Act.
This was evident when Adv Rodrigues sought details of total expenditure incurred in 2011 by the Goa Governor's official and their unofficial visits out of the state. He was also denied information when he asked details of President of India, Pratibha Patil's visit to Goa in January this year, which the Goa Governor's declared as a personal visit. However, when Adv Rodrigues asked for the same information under RTI from the Governor of Maharashtra's office, he got detailed answers which proved that the President indeed had been on an official visit and Rs15 lakh were spent from the taxpayers' money.
Box:
Chronology of the case
29 November 2010: Adv Rodrigues had sought information from Goa Raj Bhavan under RTI, details of action taken on the complaints made by him to the Governor of Goa against Advocate General of Goa Subodh Kantak. He had also sought copies of file notings and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against the Advocate General.
30 November 2010: Goa Raj Bhavan refused to furnish the information sought.
21 December 2010: Adv Rodrigues filed a complaint against the Raj Bhavan with the State Information Commission
22 December 2010: State Information Commission sent a notice directing the then Governor Dr SS Sidhu to personally appear before the State Chief Information Commissioner on 4 January 2011.
23 December 2010: Adv Rodrigues filed a caveat before the Goa bench of the BombayHigh Court against Governor Dr Sidhu anticipating that he might move the High Courtagainst the notice issued to him by the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) directing him to personally appear before the GSIC in connection with a complaint filed against him for not complying with the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
31 March 2011: Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Motilal Keny held that Governor is a Public Authority and should furnish information sought by Adv Rodrigues
22 April 2011: Governor of Goa Dr Sidhu took his battle against the Right to Information Act to the Bombay High Court.
August 2011: The Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice DG Karnik and Justice FM Reis heard the Raj Bhavan's petition for over four days and reserved the Judgment.
14 November 2011: Bombay High Court rules that Goa Governor's office comes under the ambit of the RTI Act.
