Hema Committee report: No decision on releasing omitted sections
Following the appeal, the RTI Commissioner had directed the Cultural Department to resubmit the report for verification during the hearing on October 30.
Following the appeal, the RTI Commissioner had directed the Cultural Department to resubmit the report for verification during the hearing on October 30.
Following the appeal, the RTI Commissioner had directed the Cultural Department to resubmit the report for verification during the hearing on October 30.
Thiruvananthapuram: The Right to Information (RTI) Commission did not issue a verdict on Friday regarding an appeal by journalists alleging that five pages and 11 sections were omitted from the Hema Committee report without their knowledge when requested under the RTI Act.
Following the appeal, the RTI Commissioner had directed the Cultural Department to resubmit the report for verification during the hearing on October 30. The omissions of sections 97 to 107 and pages 49 to 53 were claimed to have been due to an oversight by officials, according to Subhashini Thankachi, the Cultural Department’s RTI officer, and Joint Secretary R Santhosh. They informed the Commission that a clerical error during documentation led to the omission and apologised for the mistake.
The government, however, expressed its reluctance to release the omitted portions, citing concerns over privacy violations. Officials maintained that the withheld sections contained sensitive information that could impact the privacy of individuals.
The RTI Commission rejected these arguments, criticising the officials’ actions as tarnishing the government’s reputation and dragging a nationally significant report into unnecessary controversy. The Commission instructed the immediate submission of the full report for review. On October 30, the report—comprising 295 pages—was submitted in a sealed envelope containing a CD and a pen drive.
On July 5, the RTI Commission directed the Cultural Department to release the report after redacting information deemed to infringe on privacy. While the Commission removed 33 sections with personal data, it granted discretion to the RTI officer to withhold additional sensitive details, provided the applicants were informed in advance. Based on this, the RTI officer excluded 101 sections and provided the applicants with a list of omitted sections. However, subsequent omissions of sections not included in the initial list have triggered the current complaint, raising concerns over transparency in handling the report.