'Apathy Of Highest Order': Orissa High Court Blasts State Information Commission Over RTI Denial

Bhubaneswar, Odisha – In a scathing indictment of bureaucratic inertia and procedural dereliction, the Orissa High Court has strongly rebuked the State Information Commission (SIC) for its "apathetic and arbitrary attitude" in dismissing a citizen's Right to Information (RTI) appeal. The Court, comparing the petitioner's ordeal to the nightmarish bureaucracy of Franz Kafka's "The Trial," set aside the SIC's order, remitted the matter for a fresh hearing, and imposed a significant cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Tahasildar, Bhadrak for the "lackadaisical attitude" that led to protracted and avoidable litigation.

The judgment, delivered by Justice V. Narasingh in the case of Hemanta Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors. , underscores the judiciary's role as a bulwark against the subversion of statutory rights and serves as a powerful reminder of the principles of transparency and accountability that form the bedrock of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Genesis of a Kafkaesque Ordeal

The case originated from a simple act of civic engagement. In December 2017, the petitioner, Hemanta Nayak, along with fellow villagers, submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary of Odisha. They sought government intervention to officially record a specific plot of land in government records and to evict alleged illegal encroachers.

When a reasonable period elapsed without any discernible action, Mr. Nayak sought recourse under the RTI Act to ascertain the status of his representation. This legitimate query, intended to hold the administration accountable, marked the beginning of a years-long struggle against a wall of bureaucratic obfuscation. After his initial RTI application went unanswered, he filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act.

The response he eventually received on December 12, 2018, from the Public Information Officer (PIO), Bhadrak Tahasil, was a terse dismissal. It stated that the requested information was "not available" based on a submission from the Dealing Assistant in the Encroachment section. This response, suggesting the original representation was lost or untraceable, became a central point of contradiction later in the proceedings.

Contradictions and the Commission's Mechanical Acceptance

Undeterred, Mr. Nayak escalated the matter by filing a second appeal with the State Information Commission under Section 19(3). It was at this stage that the narrative took a bizarre and contradictory turn. The Law Officer of the very same SIC, in a surprising submission, claimed that the petitioner's queries had already been "complied 'point wise'" and the information supplied to him via the letter dated December 12, 2018—the same letter that had stated the information was unavailable.

When the SIC finally took up the appeal, it was presented with this glaring inconsistency: the PIO's formal communication denying the existence of the information, and the SIC's own Law Officer claiming it had been provided. The SIC also noted a joint affidavit from the First Appellate Authority and the PIO which reiterated the "non-availability of the information."

Despite this patent contradiction, the Commission mechanically accepted the authorities' stand and summarily dropped the case. This decision, which failed to scrutinize the incongruous positions of the state instrumentalities, became the subject of the writ petition before the High Court.

High Court's Judicial Scrutiny and Rebuke

Justice V. Narasingh expressed astonishment at the SIC's failure to address the conflicting statements. The Court found the state authorities' position to be "ex facie... incongruous," questioning how the SIC could claim information was supplied when the PIO, who would be the source of that information, had no record of the petitioner's initial representation.

In a powerfully worded critique, the Court observed that the SIC had fallen prey to the very maladies the RTI Act was designed to combat. The judgment stated:

“In the factual backdrop of the case at hand, this Court is constrained to observe that in rendering the impugned decision the State Information Commission allowed its finding to be entrapped in officialdom and red tapism, which are illegitimate tools to fall back, to deny response to an application under the RTI Act, 2005 and thereby render the provisions nugatory.”

The Court held that the SIC's failure to apply its mind and critically examine the contradictory evidence amounted to a dereliction of its statutory duty. By accepting the state's claims at face value, the SIC risked rendering the RTI Act a "dead letter." The judgment warned:

"...if such stand of the State authorities is accepted at their face value... without due scrutiny, right of a citizen to get information as codified by Act, 2005 would be a dead letter and it will set at naught the very purpose for which the Act has been enacted to contain corruption and to hold Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed.”

Implications for RTI Jurisprudence and Administrative Accountability

This ruling carries significant implications for legal practitioners and advocates of government transparency.

1. Reinforcing the Role of Information Commissions: The judgment serves as a stern reminder that Information Commissions are not mere rubber stamps for the executive. They are quasi-judicial bodies vested with the crucial responsibility of upholding a citizen's fundamental right to information. They are expected to conduct thorough inquiries, scrutinize evidence, and hold public authorities accountable for evasiveness or contradiction.

2. Deterrence Through Costs: The imposition of Rs. 50,000 in costs on the Tahasildar is a notable punitive measure. It signals that courts will not tolerate a "lackadaisical attitude" from public officials that forces citizens into protracted and expensive litigation to secure basic information. This may serve as a deterrent against similar administrative negligence in the future.

3. The "Non-Application of Mind" Standard: The Court’s finding that the SIC dropped the proceeding due to a "non-application of mind" is a critical aspect of administrative law. It highlights that quasi-judicial decisions must be reasoned, logical, and based on a fair consideration of all materials on record. A mechanical or perfunctory disposal, especially one that ignores blatant inconsistencies, is legally untenable.

Concluding its order, the High Court set aside the SIC's impugned decision and remitted the second appeal back to the Commission for a de novo hearing. It directed the SIC to dispose of the matter, preferably within 45 days, ensuring the petitioner's long-delayed quest for information finally reaches a just conclusion. The Court's poignant reference to Kafka's protagonist, lost in a labyrinth of an opaque and unfeeling system, poignantly captures the essence of this citizen's long "travail" for accountability.