Chandigarh: The Haryana State Information Commission has raised concerns over appointing assistant-level officials as state public information officers (SPIOs), observing that this practice may undermine the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005.The observations were made by the commission while hearing a complaint concerning the municipal corporation, Faridabad.The commission noted that the Faridabad municipal commissioner had designated assistant-level officials as SPIOs, despite state govt instructions requiring the appointment of sufficiently senior officials to the post.The commission observed that an SPIO was required not merely to process RTI applications but also to determine what information could be disclosed and what was exempt under the law. Since disclosures are made officially on behalf of the public authority, the post requires a high degree of responsibility, legal acumen and administrative competence.“The commission is of the firm opinion that the designation of clerical staff, assistants as SPIOs is neither conducive to the effective implementation of the RTI Act nor consistent with the spirit and object of the legislation as well as state govt’s own instructions,” stated the bench of state information commissioner Ajay Sura.Referring to the Haryana govt’s instructions dated Aug 14, 2018, the commission noted that the chief secretary’s office had advised designating “sufficiently senior” officials as SPIOs and first appellate authorities.It observed that Faridabad municipal corporation’s decision to appoint an assistant-level employee as the SPIO was contrary to these instructions.The commission stated that a sufficiently senior officer would be better placed to access records maintained across different branches, obtain assistance from subordinate officials under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, assess exemption claims, and make informed decisions that balance transparency with legally protected interests.An SPIO is also personally accountable for compliance with the law and may face penalty under Section 20 for unjustified denial, delay or other violations, the commission pointed out.The commission advised the municipal commissioner to review the existing arrangement and ensure that officers of appropriate mid-level or senior rank, with adequate administrative authority and experience, were designated as SPIOs.Complainant Deepak Tripathi had sought information from the Faridabad civic body. The commission clarified that proceedings under Section 18 were limited to examining contraventions of the RTI Act and did not involve adjudicating the adequacy or correctness of information already furnished. Since the information had ultimately been supplied and no mala fide denial or deliberate obstruction was established, the commission closed the complaint.
