KEY FACTS
Santosh Kumar, the petitioner filed an application under Right To Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Delhi Police Head Quarters (PHQ). He requested the following information:
- Whether transgender persons’ begging in public places with or without misconduct is a cognizable offence or not.
- How many First Information Reports (FIRs) had been registered in this regard
The 12 Public Information Officers (PIO) responding on behalf of the CPIO at the Delhi PHQ provided incomplete and contradictory information. Consequently, Santosh Kumar filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authorities arguing that the response should have been given by the CPIO and not the District police headquarters.
ISSUES
The issues before the commission were:
- Whether it was wrong for the CPIO to pass the RTI application to District police headquarters.
- Whether the information provided by the PIOs and FAA was unsatisfactory.
DECISION
The Court noted that indeed, the information provided by the PIOs was contradictory. Hence, it directed the CPIO to provide consolidated information within 4 weeks of the judgement.
SIGNIFICANCE
Santosh Kumar’s RTI is significant because several activists have argued that criminalising begging adversely affects transgender persons and has been a key criticism of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018.