RTI case: Governor seeks immunity

PANJIM, JAN 4
Goa Governor Dr S S Siddhu on Tuesday sought immunity under Article 361 of Indian Constitution to absolve himself from the case against him with Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) for not furnishing information under Right to Information (RTI) Act.
“Governor has a privilege under Article 361 of Indian Constitution which states that Governor cannot be personally held responsible for the functions he does while discharging his duty,” counsel to the Governor, Carlos Ferreira told reporters after appearing before the Commission.
State Information Commissioner Motilal Keny on December 22, 2010 had issued notices to Governor Dr S S Sidhu and Special Secretary to the Governor Dr N Radhakrishnan directing them to appear in person before the Commission on January 4, 2011 in connection with the case.
“…By virtue of Article 361 of the Constitution, there is absolute protection, privilege and immunity to the Governor of a State for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any Act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties and hence the Respondent No 1 (Governor) could not be arrayed as a party Respondent in these proceedings,” Narendra Kumar,  Secretary to Governor of Goa stated in the Affidavit before the Commission on behalf of Dr Sidhu.
The Governor failed to appear before the Commission since he is playing host to President Pratibha Patil during her four-day visit to Goa. But Dr Radhakrishnan appeared before the Bench.
Advocate Aires Rodrigues had filed a complaint against the duo for not furnishing information under RTI Act.
Ferreira said that Governor personally cannot be made party to the petition because he has not signed the order vis-à-vis information under RTI.
Dr Radhakrishnan in his reply before the Commission said that Governor is not a ‘public authority’ and therefore he cannot be covered under RTI. The Commission has scheduled the next date of hearing for arguments on January 21.
Strongly opposing this, Rodrigues submitted that the Governor had to be party to the case to explain to the Commission as to how he is not a ‘public authority.’
He also drew the Commission’s attention that even the President of India as a ‘public authority’ was complying with the RTI Act.
Rodrigues by an application on November 29, 2010 under the RTI had sought from the Raj Bhavan details of action taken on complaints made by him to the Governor against Advocate General Subodh Kantak.
He had also sought copies of noting sheets and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against the AG.
The reply letter undersigned by the Special Secretary on November 30 declined to furnish information stating that information under RTI Act could not be furnished as the Governor is not a ‘Public Authority.’
The reply also mentioned that an Affidavit to this effect was filed before the Bombay High Court at Goa.
At a public meeting in December 2010, the advocate demanded that Governor should not hoist the Tricolour on the Republic Day on January 26, 2011, if the latter claims he is not a Public Authority.