Jammu: Serious questions over transparency and accountability have surfaced after two key public authorities—the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Vijaypur and the Divisional Commissioner Jammu office—came under scrutiny for their handling of Right to Information (RTI) applications.
At the centre of the controversy is an RTI reply issued by AIIMS Vijaypur, which stated that crucial information sought regarding its hospital facilities, comparison with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, and details of emergency patient referrals to Government Medical College, Jammu is “not available in compiled form.”
The reply has sparked criticism, particularly as the queries relate to core operational and public health service parameters of a premier central healthcare institution.
Observers say that while data may exist in raw records, the inability to provide it in compiled or accessible form raises concerns about documentation systems, data management practices, and internal monitoring mechanisms.
Healthcare and transparency activists argue that a premier institution like AIIMS is expected to maintain structured datasets for planning, accountability, and public reporting.
The absence of compiled data, they say, not only delays information delivery but also weakens public trust in institutional efficiency.
In a separate development, the Divisional Commissioner Jammu office has been accused of refusing to accept an RTI application sent through Speed Post by Advocate Hitesh Koul, Joint Secretary of the Young Lawyers Association.
According to the applicant, the application was returned with a remark advising that RTI queries should be filed through the online portal.
The move has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, who term it inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
They point out that the law permits citizens to file RTI applications both physically and online, and administrative preference cannot override statutory rights.
“This sets a dangerous precedent if public offices start rejecting legally valid RTI applications on procedural grounds not prescribed under the law,” a senior legal practitioner observed, adding that such practices could effectively restrict access to information.
Taken together, the two cases point towards what activists describe as a “growing pattern of procedural evasion” and reluctance in facilitating timely access to public information.
Members of the legal fraternity and civil society groups have called for immediate corrective measures, including sensitisation of public information systems and strict adherence to RTI timelines and procedures.
They have also demanded accountability for officials responsible for delaying or denying lawful information requests.
Many believe these cases could soon escalate into appeals before First Appellate Authorities and State or Central Information Commissions, depending on jurisdictional review.
As the debate intensifies, attention is now firmly on how these institutions respond—whether by strengthening compliance mechanisms and record management systems, or facing deeper scrutiny over transparency practices in public governance.
