Disposal of Documents Bill will not destroy important records, officials reassure

BILL PROVIDES FOR PRESERVATION OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR REFERENCE AND RECORD UNDER PROVISIONS OF LAWS IN FORCE

GANGTOK, 22 March: The Sikkim Disposal and Destruction of Documents and Records Bill, 2012 introduced and passed in the recently concluded Assembly session, has created a stir among some sections of the society, especially the Opposition political parties, which have cast aspersions on the intent behind the government proposing such a law. The state BJP has even questioned as to how the High Court has been named in the Bill, and in a press statement released today, sought that all court records be preserved. Other groups see the Bill as a move to destroy “evidence” related to corruption charges against the Government.
The concerned authorities in the State Government [the Bill was tabled by the Chief Minister in his capacity as also holding the Law portfolio], when contacted today, reassured that records and documents cannot, and will not, be destroyed or disposed off arbitrarily or without the laying down of clear rules and procedures.
The Bill, identical to a Central Act [Disposal of Document Act of 1917], seeks the appointment of an “authority” to make rules for disposal of documents and records, which are, in the opinion of the authority, “not of sufficient public value to justify their preservation”. For matters of the Court in relation to this Bill, this Authority will be the High Court itself and in case of documents related to the State Government, it will be an officer specially authorized for the task.
Allaying what they see as “unfounded and superficial apprehensions”, reliable sources within the government explained that records falling in the ambit of the Right to Information Act, for example, cannot be destroyed.
Section 3 of the Bill states: “Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize the disposal or destruction of the document which, under the provision of any law for the time being in force, is to be kept or maintained for further reference and record”.
The Right to Information Act is a law very much in force and provisions of this Act stipulate that any citizen can seek information dating up to 20 years back from the date of the RTI application. Just with this Act alone, official documents of up to 20 years vintage at least are automatically secured. Meanwhile, there are other documents and records which continue to be of “public value” and remain in contemporary use, like the Sikkim Subjects Register of 1961 on the basis of which Certificates of Identification are issued nowadays. There will similarly be more documents, which because of “laws for the time being in force”, remain relevant for reference and record. These cannot be destroyed.
On the question of why the Bill was required in the first place, officials inform that one of the motivating reasons was the impracticality of maintaining all records for perpetuity. It might also be added here that all governments, foreign as well as the Government of India, have provisions for the disposal of documents and records which have ceased to be of any real value; so it is not a new or unique to Sikkim concept.
A law provides for clear rules to be framed and a process established on how to decide which documents or records can be disposed. In the absence of such an enabling Bill, the government here is technically required to preserve every document it has ever generated forever.
Senior government officials commented that there is a need to dispose old documents and records which are of no obvious public value but are occupying too much space and are not even being stored too well either. With the State government hard pressed to find proper space for the storing of such documents and records, the need to dispose those no longer required is prudent, they state, while adding that this could not “officially” be done thus far since there were no rules in place to allow such disposal.
Interestingly, reliable sources inform that the High Court of Sikkim, too, has desired that such a provision be made available to enable it to dispose old and unnecessary documents and records in its possession.
In fact, it is informed that the High Court, in an internal meeting, had felt the need for such an Act in the State and subsequently written to the State government communicating its opinion.
“In all earnestness,” officials stress, “this Bill was not a hastily prepared one and much thought went into it with a Cabinet memo prepared duly explaining its intent purpose.” They further reiterate that proper rules will be framed for the disposal of documents and since the Bill stipulates that documents required for reference or record under provisions of any law in force cannot be destroyed, most of the fears being raised against the Bill have already been attended to.