The Kerala State Information Commission has ordered the release of the Justice Hema Commission report appointed to study the problems in the film industry. In an order dated Friday, the Commission also directed that no information should be withheld except what is prohibited under the RTI Act.
Although the report was submitted on December 31, 2019, the Kerala government has not released it yet. Journalists have approached the Right To Information Commission against this. Actor Sharada and former IAS officer KB Vatsala Kumari were members of the commission.
Here are five salient features from the Kerala State Information Commission's report that you may like to know:
1. ...prior notice was issued to the respondents to submit the said Hema Committee Report in a sealed envelope before the Commission. However, although both the parties attended the hearing on 02.05.2024, the requested report was not provided. Instead, a status report detailing the reasons for denying the requested information was submitted. The respondents explained that the report was intended for submission to the Chalachitra Academy for developing a comprehensive film policy for the state, and the Secretary had referred it to the Minister. Without considering these reasons, the Commission rescheduled the case for further hearing on 09.05.2024, directing that the Hema Committee Report be submitted for the Commission's review, to which the respondents agreed. However, by 09.05.2024, the requested report had still not been submitted.
2. The Commission rejected all arguments and proceedings, stating that no further explanation was needed and that the Hema Committee Report must be submitted in a sealed envelope as soon as possible. An additional 10 days was granted to the First Appellate Authority, and notice was issued to the respondents under Sections 18(3) and (4) of the Indian RTI Act.
ALSO READ | Kerala govt reveals why it cannot make public Justice Hema panel report
...submitted the report portion of Justice K. Hema Committee Report, consisting of 295 pages (excluding appendices/exhibits), with the original signature of the chairperson Justice K Hema and members -actress T. Sharada and retired IAS officer Valsalakumari. The Cultural (B) Department informed the Commission that the supporting documents and the pendrive having the data used to prepare the report are securely stored in their office.
3. It is very important to notice that any document registered in a government office is a public record, and the public authority is its custodian. Applications, petitions, study reports, committee recommendations, bills, and receipts submitted to the government are public records. This includes information as defined under the RTI Act. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act says “Information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form, and information relating to any private body that can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
4. Regarding the definition of "information," a Supreme Court observation in the case of SLP (C) No. 7526/2009 (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011), which clarified that the RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. The Act obliges public authorities to provide information if it exists in the form of data or analyzed data, but not if it requires creating new information or drawing inferences. The obligation is to provide existing records only, and any advice or opinion is voluntary and not mandated by the RTI Act.
The RTI Act Provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of ‘information’ and right to information under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the from of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also no required to furnish information which require drawing of inference and/or making of his own assumptions. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of information in Section 2 (f) of the Act, refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. The SPIO is not required to offer his own opinion on the materials supplied. But as per Section 2(f) opinion kept in a file will also fall in the category of information.
5. In this case, the reason cited by the SPIO for denying the information does not fall under any clause of Section 8 or 9 of the Right to Information Act. The Act implies that even the matters covered under the ten clauses of Section 8 should be disclosed subject to certain conditions. All the clauses in Section 8 conclude with this provision. Furthermore, Sections 10(1) and 10(2)(a) and (b) of the Right to Information Act further clarify this matter.