From its primitive way of authoritarian working style, the police organization in J&K UT expects to work and grow as per civilized standards norms which are primarily based on exhibiting more responsibility, transparency and accountability in its work.
JAMMU: There is a dire need for schooling of designated Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) of Jammu and Kashmir Police organization to understand RTI Act 2005 from the right perspective to ensure transparency and accountability in its working in the larger interest of society.
In an era of accountability, the matter deserves utmost attention of police chief as in certain cases, it has been observed that by hastily invoking section 8 of RTI Act 2005, the CPIOs’ are denying information which, if revealed, would help in augmenting safe and secure environment for the public who are already shaken due to alarming crime graph in Jammu city.
Recently, while furnishing a reply in offline mode in response to an online RTI query, the CPIO, District Police Jammu invoking section 8 of RTI Act, arbitrarily refused information sought by applicant pertaining to tenants residing in Bagh e Bahu police jurisdiction.
Prompted by a shocking incident of crime and simmering discontent prevailing among residents against lackadaisical approach of the police towards re-surfacing of drug peddlers, criminals and human traffickers as unverified tenants in Bagh e Bahu police jurisdiction, the applicant has filed online RTI application vide registration No Zonal/R/2025/60020 dated 13/2/20025.
The applicant seeks locality-wise status of tenants residing in Police station Bagh e Bahu w.e.f January 1st, 2023 to till date vis a vis number of verification requests received, premises housing tenants in a lawful manner, tenants residing in contravention of law and total number of FIRs registered against owners for keeping tenants sans police verification.
In a reply, stating that 42 applications were received for tenant’s verification, the CPIO, however, denied rest of the information, citing an exemption under sec 8 sans any reference to subsections ranging from 8 (1)(a) –(j), 2 and 3.
Interestingly, the information pertaining to number of FIRs registered against house owners for keeping tenants sans verification was also denied under the refuge of sec 8, which appears as a clandestine attempt to shield shortcomings of men in uniform deployed in the area.
For the information of learned CPIO of JKP, broadly Section 8 of RTI Act, 2005 summarizes exemptions from obligation to provide information that could endanger security and sovereignty of the nation, breach privileges, or infringe on privacy. In the same breath, it also acknowledges that exemptions under Section 8 are discretionary and not mandatory and PIOs may make discretionary disclosures of exempt information, when public interest in disclosure outweighs harm to protected interests.
It is interesting to see that information which was denied pertains to willful law violators who are endangering safety of citizens by providing a safe haven to anti-social elements. Moreover, day in and day out, the social media accounts of the police are percolating details about offenders and FIRs into public domain, then refusing details of offenders in reference to tenant’s verification sounds bizarre.
The required information falls in the category of general crime and the Chief Information Commissioner, time and again has ruled that police organizations cannot deny information to citizens, citing conditional exemption. When did law breakers in J&K UT starts enjoying exemption from revelation of their information to public spirit information seekers under RTI Act is a sort of new educational experience for the author of this new item.