The Tamil Nadu Information Commission has strongly condemned an appellant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act for using abusive language against an Information Commissioner during a hearing. The commission made it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable while adjudicating matters of transparency.
Commissioner Directs Fresh Submission for Final Order
While disposing of a batch of appeals filed by S Gunasekar from Otteri, Information Commissioner R Priyakumar took serious note of the appellant's conduct. The commissioner has now directed Gunasekar to personally appear on December 31 and submit a written statement. This statement must present the queries he raised and the replies received in a tabular format. The final order in the case will be pronounced based on this fresh submission.
Details of the RTI Petitions to Madras High Court
The incident stemmed from appeals related to original petitions filed by Gunasekar with the Madras High Court in 2023. His RTI applications sought clarifications on specific procedural matters. These included whether the High Court sends copies of petitions to the concerned police station when issuing orders to the police. He also asked if sanction letters are mandatory to file complaints against magistrates, the principal sessions judge, and the registrar-general.
In a separate petition, he inquired whether a police assistant commissioner has the authority to record an accused's statement and classify it as a witness account. Since all his complaints were similar and addressed to the High Court, Information Commissioner Priyakumar clubbed them for a single hearing.
The Confrontation During Hearing
During the recent hearing, the commissioner accepted the submission made by the Madras High Court's Public Information Officer (PIO). The PIO had stated that Gunasekar's applications were framed in the form of questions rather than seeking specific recorded information. Allegedly dissatisfied with this, Gunasekar accused Commissioner Priyakumar of favouring the PIOs over the public. He then proceeded to hurl verbal abuses, even stating that the commissioner was unfit for the position.
In its formal order, the commission condemned this behaviour in unequivocal terms. It reiterated that the appellant's role is to clearly state how the information provided was not relevant to his queries, not to resort to personal attacks. The commission's stance underscores the importance of maintaining decorum in proceedings aimed at upholding the right to information.
