[ad_1]
A lawyer practising in the Madras High Court is shocked to have acquired a communication penned in Hindi in response to his software in English to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, searching for particulars beneath the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005.
Advocate S. Kumaradevan had submitted an RTI Act software to the Public Information Officer of the Ministry on August 28 searching for particulars of funds allotted by the Centre between 2014-15 and 2020-21 for promotion of ayurveda, siddha and unani individually. He additionally wished to know the variety of medical centres operated in these three types of Indian drugs.
Under the RTI Act, PIOs are beneath a statutory obligation to both present the knowledge or switch the appliance to the division involved with due intimation to the applicant. Accordingly, his software appeared to have been transferred to the Union Ministry of AYUSH.
Subsequently, the appliance one way or the other landed with the Uttar Pradesh State AYUSH Society and its Mission Director forwarded it to the PIOs of Ayurved and Unani providers on October 27 with a request to supply the knowledge sought by the lawyer. Copies of this communication in Hindi have been marked to the AYUSH Ministry in addition to the lawyer.
“I was taken aback to receive the communication in Hindi. I couldn’t understand head or tail of it. Even my name and address on the envelope had been written in Hindi. Right next to that, someone had scribbled my name and the name of my street alone with a black pen in English. I presume that it must have been done by the local post office so that the postman could deliver it to me,”he mentioned.
“The officers knew very well that the application was made by someone from Tamil Nadu and that it had been made specifically in English. Should they not make sure that communications sent to me should also be in English? Will they accept if I make an RTI application in Tamil? What is the point in forwarding copies of communications in a language that I do not understand?” the lawyer questioned.
[ad_2]
Source