Raipur: In a landmark ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has declared that the Ombudsman appointed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) shall comply with the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI) Regulation.
Justice Bibu Datta Guru Dismissal of Ombudsman’s petition challenging government order National Information Commissioner (SIC) directed the disclosure of specific information sought by the residents of Bastar.
The case stemmed from an RTI application filed by Birbal Ratre, a resident of Bastar, on August 19, 2015, seeking details of complaints filed with the ombudsman since January 1, 2015, along with investigation reports, notes and recorded statements.
The Zila Panchayat Executive Director forwarded the application to the Ombudsman, but the Ombudsman rejected it citing confidentiality obligations under the MGNREGA Act and immunity under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
After the ombudsman refused, Rutter appealed to the chief executive. When no action was taken, he contacted the SIC, which ordered the ombudsman to provide the requested information within 30 days.
The Ombudsman challenged the order, arguing that as a quasi-judicial authority under the MGNREGA Act, he was exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act, which prohibits the disclosure of certain information, including details received in a fiduciary relationship or details that could impede an investigation or prosecution.
The petitioner further argued that under Section 27 of the MGNREGA Act, investigation into improper use of funds should be conducted by an agency designated by the Central Government, which underscores the statutory nature of the Ombudsman. Therefore, the order to disclose information was held to be in violation of the RTI Act.
The SIC’s counsel argued that the Ombudsman, being a statutory body, comes under the RTI Act and the state government has to appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO) and appellate authority for the purpose.
The court confirmed that the directions to the Ombudsman in the MGNREGA Act are to ensure that grievances are redressed and complaints are resolved.
Therefore, information related to the Ombudsman proceedings falls within the ambit of the RTI Act. The court noted that Section 8 of the RTI Act does not exempt the ombudsman from the duty of disclosure.
Justice Guru upheld the SIC’s order and held that there was nothing illegal or inappropriate in directing the inspector to provide the required information. This ruling reinforces the principles of transparency and accountability in public administration.
