We need a good legal training institute in J&K
Judiciary pronounces orders and judgements but the law officers and legal teams posted in Govt offices misinterpret these orders, creating chaos and confusion. Many public works are not executed on the ground as officials fail to apply their mind while going through court orders. In some cases this is done deliberately, but in many cases this happens because Govt officials lack legal acumen and they are not given periodic training on the subject. Even there are instances wherein Govt officials deny information to people under Right to Information Act (RTI) claiming that matter is sub-judice or link the same with 3rd party information. In this article I have tried to highlight this issue with few important case studies. Unfortunately these issues are not even reported by our mainstream media.
Misuse of word Sub-Judice
Former State Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi, a week before his retirement gave a landmark judgment on Feb 18th 2016. He made it clear to the Govt Offices about misusing the legal term Sub-Judice. It has become a norm for many Government officials to misuse and misinterpret this legal terminology and under its garb not only the information is denied under Right to Information Act (RTI), but injustice is done with many people who remain silent due to lack of legal knowledge. Small court cases are quoted by office clerks and they tell aggrieved that the matter is sub-judice?
The State Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) in his orders had said that there is no mention of word sub-judice in section 8 (exemption clause) of J&K RTI Act 2009.
With an aim of seeking some information from J&K Housing Board one Ashudeep Kohli R/O Channi Himmat Jammu filed an application under J&K RTI Act 2009 in the office of Senior Programmer who is also the designated Public Information Officer (PIO) of J&K Housing Board. The RTI application was received in the office of Senior Programmer (PIO) on June 2nd 2015. Ashudeep Kohli wanted to know the reasons for not considering his bid for allotment of a shop in Sector 1, Channi Himmat, Jammu. In this regard MD J&K, Housing Board had already issued an advertisement on 17-07-2014.
The Housing Board Senior Programmer and designated PIO under RTI Act passed an order on June 27th 2015 and provided information under RTI Act to Ashudeep Kohli. After getting the reply Kohli was not satisfied with the reply. On July 11th 2015 he challenged the reply by filing first appeal before the Managing Director who is the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of Housing Board. On August 14th 2015, the MD Housing Board decided the 1st appeal by upholding the PIO’s order. Not satisfied again with MD’s orders, Ashudeep Kohli went to the then State Information Commission (SIC) by filing 2nd appeal on September 29th 2015. The State Information Commission (SIC) heard this case several times and on February 18th 2016 the commission gave its final judgment. The Commission made it clear that there is no concept of sub-judice under Section 8, which is the provision of law along with Section 9, which exempts certain information from being disclosed. The State Information Commission in its orders said :
“The Commission has gone through relevant provisions of the law and found that there is no concept of sub-judice under Section 8, which is the provision of law along with Section 9, which exempt certain information from being disclosed. Section 8(1)(b) of the J&K State RTI Act, 2009 states that information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court shall not be disclosed. The FAA and PIO have not brought anything to the notice of the Commission, wherein, Hon’ble High Court or any other Tribunal has expressly forbidden the disclosure of information or anything which may constitute contempt of the court. As there is no any such expressed direction of any court or tribunal or anything which may constitute contempt of the court, therefore, information as sought by the appellant becomes disclosable and PIO to disclose said information within 15 days of the receipt of this order”
Law officers need capacity building
Legal awareness helps to promote consciousness of legal culture and Government officials especially those posted in the legal wing of Govt offices need to be given periodic training on interpretation of judicial orders and judgements. I have personally observed that legal teams in various Govt departments are also not able to properly elucidate on court orders and make unnecessary delays in submitting the counter responses to various judicial or quasi judicial institutions and the ultimate sufferers are the citizens. Legal education comprises a range of activities which intend to build public awareness and skills related to law and the justice system.
Conclusion
A dedicated legal training institute on the pattern of State Judicial Academy should be set up in Srinagar and Jammu for conducting refresher courses , seminars and workshops for law officers posted in various Govt institutions. We already have a J&K Judicial Academy which is doing good work but this institute is more focussed on training Judges of high court, Lower Judiciary and Ministerial staff but a dedicated training institute for Law Officers, Legal Assistants and allied staff is missing. Even the designated PIOs under RTI Act 2005 misinterpret RTI law especially 3rd party information and deprive citizens of public information. Due to lack of training and capacity building our Govt officials lack many skills and it ultimately makes citizens suffer. I am sure that Chief Minister Omar Abdullah will take my suggestions positively.
Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat is an Acumen Fellow. He is Founder / Chairman Jammu & Kashmir RTI Movement
