Law and the layman-petition to prosecute the DC/DM and DSP

There are two classes of people in this country- those in government and those outside government. Though we are supposed to be a democracy and those in government are supposed to be the servants of those outside, in practice we know that nothing could be farther than this. The way our 'democracy' has evolved those in government will make laws and enforce it on those outside in the most obnoxiously whimsical manner and there is nothing that the victims can do about it. And that is why it is truly said that every people get the government they deserve! Unless the people wake up and assert their supremacy over every public servant as befitting a democracy, democracy itself stands doomed. Fortunately everything is still not lost. Sections 217, 218 and 219 of the Indian Penal Code provide a glimmer of hope. Here are these sections reproduced for your convenience.

Sec 217. Public servant disobeying the direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture- Whoever, being a public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject his to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that is is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.

Sec 218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture- whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with the intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save or knowing hat he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.

Sec 219. Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc contrary to law- whoever being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, or order verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years or with fine or with both.

It is in the context of the above provisions of the IPC that a petition was filed to prosecute the District Collector/District Magistrate, the District Superintendent of Police and and Information Commissioner of the Kerala State Information Commission. The petition is reproduced below.

SAVE RIGHT TO INFORMATION CAMPAIGN

Co-ordinator: Maj (Retd) P M Ravindran, 2/18, ‘Aathira’, Kalpathy-678003

 

File: Comp/kla-scstcmte-060912                                                                                06 Sep 2012

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE WELFARE OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

OF THE KERALA STATE LEGISLATURE SITTING AT PALAKKAD ON 06 SEP 2012.

References: (Copies attached)

1.      1st appeal, reply by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and 2^nd appeal in the matter of information sought under the RTI Act from the O/o The District Collector/ District Magistrate (DC/DM) after almost 3 months of certain atrocities being perpetrated on the members of SC/ST.

2.      Order of the Information Commissioner(IC), Kerala State Information Commission in the matter of a 2^nd appeal (The copies of the application and reply by the Public Information Officer (PIO) are not included to avoid wastage of stationary and resources since the contents of all these have been reproduced verbatim in the order.)

3.      Application under the RTI Act - RTI/dpo pkd-appln-190610-sc-st dated  19 Jun 2010 filed with the O/o The District Supdt of Police (DSP) in the context of the same atrocity

4.      The reply – No G7/46883/2010/P dated 23/6/10- from the PIO of the O/o the DSP

5.      The reply –No 2/RTI/SMS/10 dated 28/6/2010- from the Asst Police Supdt, Agali and

6.      Plachimada Samara Aikyadhardya Samithi complaint –PSADS/comp-pca pkd-sc sc act-310810 dated 31 Aug 2010 to the Police Complaint Authority (PCA), Palakkad

Brief Description of the Case.

7.      As reported in the media and subsequently verified on the ground, there was an attack on the residents of a colony of SC/ST communities at Plachimada in Mar-Apr 2010 wherein 10 members of the community were hospitalized and the houses of two had been destroyed. Under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ( SC/ST PoA Act) the DC/DM and the DSP are required to take some specific actions. As can be seen from the responses to the applications/appeals under the RTI Act none of these actions had been taken. 

Details of the case.

8.      The PIO of the O/o the DC/DM had not provided any information sought and had merely forwarded the application to various other public authorities as per details given below:

8.1.To PIO, O/o The District Govt Pleader, Palakkad to provide info sought at para 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of the application, as per their letter No D1-2010/4431/9(2) dated 31/7/2010

8.2.To PIO, O/o The Scheduled Tribes Development Officer, Palakkad to provide info sought at para 1.6, 1.9, 1.11,1.12 and 1.14 of the application, as per their letter No D1-2010/4431/9(3) dated 31/7/2010

8.3.To PIO, O/o The Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Palakkad to provide info sought at paras 1.11,1.12 and 1.14 of the application, as per their letter No D1-2010/4431/9(4) dated 31/7/2010

8.4.To PIO, O/o The District Planning Officer, Palakkad to provide info sought at para 2 of the application, as per their letter No D1-2010/4431/9(2) dated 5/8/2010

8.5.To PIO, O/o The Asst Development Commissioner, Palakkad to provide info sought at para 2 of the application, as per their letter No D1-2010/4431/9(3) dated 5/8/2010

9.      None of the PIOs to whom the application had been forwarded had provided any information they were expected to provide, except the PIO of the O/o The Asst Development Commissioner who had provided some (not complete) information as per para 2.1 of the application and the estimate prepared by the EE, KWA, Palakkad.

10.  The above facts indicate that the DC/DM had not complied with any of the mandatory provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and hence need to be dealt with as an accomplice after the fact in the matter of the crime perpetrated on the SC/ST members at Plachimada.

11.  As the 1^st Appellate Authority (FAA) under the RTI Act also he had failed miserably to provide a just decision. While the information against para 1.1 and 1.2 of the application was totally denied, even the information sought at para 2.1 (which is a sanction by the District Collector himself for the drinking water project) had been provided only by the O/o The Asst Development Commissioner! In this context the DC/DM is prosecutable under Sec 217, 218 and 219 of the IPC also.

12.  The IC who had merely reproduced the contents of the application, 1^st appeal and statement by the FAA and added just two brief paras about the hearing and his illogical and illegal decision is also prosecutable under Sec 217,218 and 219 of the IPC. Presuming that the conclusion of the IC that satisfactory efforts had been made to provide all available info is correct, it reiterates the ground for prosecution of the DC/DM as stated in para 9 above because no info had been provided only because no info was available which again was only because none of the actions required to be taken had been taken! But having decided that the action of the PIO in denying info by insisting on a particular mode of payment of cost the IC was bound by Sec 20 of the RTI Act to impose the prescribed penalties. Worse, even in his order he has not directed the PIO to provide the info free of cost but only to provide an opportunity to the applicant to inspect the documents and take notes where necessary! This is absolutely illegal as the onus of providing the info is on the PIO as much as the onus of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be (also) be on the PIO (Sec 20 of the RTI Act).

13.  That the police investigations into the crime has also not been done as per law has been exposed through the applications under the RTI Act and replies received, referred to at paras 3 to 5 above. Sec 7 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act mandates that the investigations be done by an officer holding the rank of not less than a Dy SP. A complaint made to the PCA on 31 Aug 2010 has not made any progress so far.

Requirements.

14.  We are supposed to be a democratic country where the highest office of the land is that of the citizen. (Ref:  Report of the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution) All authorities of the government are required to work for him. It follows that all public servants while being subject to all the laws in force in the country as applicable for all citizens are also bound by the additional laws that requires them to provide their services effectively and efficiently. It can easily be seen that the services of public servants are the most essential services for the citizens and any deficiency would lead to break down of the trust reposed on these public servants and ultimately to chaos and even law and order problems. This mandates that failures on the part of public servants have to be dealt with an iron hand. In this context, there is clear need to prosecute the DC/DM, Palakkad, DSP, Palakkad and the IC, KSIC for being accomplices after the fact in the crimes perpetrated on the SC/ST communities at Plachimada and also under Sec 217, 218 and 219 of the IPC.

      Signed and submitted at Palakkad on 06 Sep 2012.