FEARS ON MISUSE OF DISPOSAL OF DOCUMENTS BILL UNFOUNDED

Letter:
This is in the context of the news item titled ‘Disposal of Documents Bill will not destroy important records, officials reassure’ appearing on 23 March in NOW!
It is appalling to see the lack of depth and knowledge of our people who have the ageold tendency to make wild allegations on the slightest flicker such as now on misuse of Bill on disposal and destruction of old records enacted by the Assembly.
Fears have been raised that records on corruption would be destroyed by vested elements. This Bill passed by the Sikkim Legislative Assembly on 20th March, 2012 has been done in line of the Central Law on Destruction of Records Act, 1917 which provides for the destruction or disposal of certain documents in possession or custody of Courts and Revenue and other public offices. Unfortunately, this Central legislation has not been extended and enforced so far in Sikkim in view of the special position of the State. This could have been done by the President of India recommending extension and enforcement of Central Laws in the immediate two years after the merger of the State as provided in the Constitution. This did not happen. In the State legislation also, no such law in the subject had been promulgated or legislated in the past. There was, hence a vacuum which needed to be filled in as one could not go on keeping record after record for decades. This is also not possible in keeping domestic records. Quite rightly, the Hon’ble High Court had felt the pinch of the problem and had suggested for such legislation to be enacted.
The Right to Information Act provides for maintenance of records for a minimum period of twenty years which has a bearing on all Central Legislation and offices and in the State offices too. Then why the fear that records on papers of corruption would be destroyed?! The fears are unfounded and need to be allayed.  This State Legislation has to be backed by Rules. The Hon’ble High Court would be framing Rules for the Courts for their guidance for the records of the Courts. Certainly, the State Government also would be framing Rules for guidance as far as the Government Records are concerned. When there is no issue at all, it is redundant on account of lack of merit and of fear of illegality. One should appreciate what is right and not be misled.  
The tiger has to be seen as a tiger and not feared as in a mirage in the desert. But where is the proverbial tiger?
R.B. Subba, Chandmari [recvd on email]