The Right to Information
For BCAJ November,
2006
Narayan Varma
This month I depart from the usual
contents in this feature, and instead, I report on the RTI National Convention.
The National Convention on ‘One
Year of RTI’ was held for 3 days — 13th to
The Right to Information Act, 2005 has
been made fully applicable from
To celebrate this event, The Central
Information Commission (CIC) arranged a national convention of 3 days.
I was invited by the Chief Information
Commissioner Shri Wajahat Habibullah to attend. Nearly 1000 citizens attended this grand national convention, consisting of all 4 Central
Information Commissioners besides the Central Chief Commissioner, various State
Information Commissioners (they are nearly 40 of them), PIOs
and Appellate authorities from various organisations
and government bodies and large number of RTI activists and interested civil
society members.
The National Convention was
inaugurated by Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, President of
India. He desires that RTI must become part of the Government’s e-governance programme. He advised CIC to see that appeals before it and
at the level of the State Commissions get disposed of expeditiously. Statistics
show that presently the disposal is tardy. The Central Information Commission
from April, 2006 to July, 2006 received 1713 appeals and have disposed of only
835, pending being 1305 including some of the appeals received up to 31st
March. The position at the level of States is equally
dismal. For example in
On 14th October, Dr. P. C. Alexander,
M.P. gave very powerful and interesting keynote address. He was unsparing in
his criticism of the Government and the Information Commissions for their
faults, and very categorically stated that the Government’s move to amend the
law was regressive. With his long experience, he stated that giving file notings posed no problem to honest officers.
On the second day, participants broke
up into three groups to discuss panel issues in three halls of Vigyan Bhawan. The subjects were :
·
‘One year of RTI — Taking Stock — Its Success,
Shortcomings’
·
‘Approaches to maximum disclosure and promotion
of open Government, especially with emphasis on improving information storage,
maintenance, and thereby, faster retrieval’
·
‘Dealing with the challenges before the RTI and
chalking out a roadmap for the future, in-cluding
creating awareness up to the grass-roots level and simplification of
procedures’.
Last panel was chaired by Mr. Anna Hazare.
There were two sessions of ‘citizen speak’ where all participants had opportunity to
express their views which were frankly and boldly expressed by many. Most of
them expressed their dissatisfaction with the current status of RTI. By and
large, everyone voiced the view that RTI had not delivered its promise and
potential. Some citizens were very vociferous and eloquent in attacking the
Commissions, PIOs and Appellate Authorities. At times
the integrity of officials and Commissioners was also challenged. Bad and
illegal orders from all these functionaries were attacked repeatedly, with just
a few showing any appreciation of anything done by them. The three persistent
demands by the activists were about penalty imposition, personal hearings and
S. 4 disclosure.
Let me pen a few words on the
discussion on S. 4. It is felt that S. 4 is the heart of the Act. The
said Section provides for the obligations of public authorities. On
every public authority, obligation is cast to maintain and publish a variety of
information as listed in 17 parts therein. The Section also states that the
public authority shall update these publications every year. Ss.(2) thereof reads :
(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in
accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of Ss.(1)
to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various
means of communications, including Internet, so that the public need not often
resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
It was felt that large number of public authorities have not complied with this
obligation. It was also noted that unfortunately the Act does not have any
deterrent provision to enforce compliance of this obligation. It was also felt
that if the provisions of the Section are properly complied with, applications
to seek information would get very much reduced. However, great disappointment
was noted of complete disregard of this obligation by the public authorities,
as provided in S. 4 which is the mother of all obligations under the Act.
One interesting controversy which was
discussed at this National Convention was about who has got the right to seek
information under this Act. S. 3 reads :
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right
to information." Based on this provision, CIC has ruled in one case (No.
168/IC(A)/2006 of 14-8-2006) that appellant not being citizen (People’s Union
of Civil Liberties) is not covered u/s.3 of the Act. Hence, it has no right to
obtain information u/s.6. Accordingly, the Central Information Commissioner
(Prof. M. M. Ansari) ruled that the appeal is not
maintainable. However, interestingly the said S. 6 reads :
‘A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall
make a request . . . . . .’ So also many other
relevant Sections use the word ‘person’ v. ‘individual’ or ‘citizen.’
Hence some participants, including some State Commissioners hold the view that
even a company, firm, NGO, etc. can make an application under the
RTI Act. May be, the latter view is right and may be, the Central Information Commission may reverse its
decision. More on this some time later. As regards the
controversy regarding levy of penalties, it was debated whether penalty should
be levied more strictly by the Information Commissioners or they should be
lenient for some more time. In this connection, it is interesting to note that CICs in last one year, in spite of numerous defaults, have
levied penalty sparingly, have only reprimanded the PIOs.
One interesting case of levy of penalty is of the Maharashtra
CIC. It is in respect of the application for certain information sought by Mr. Tarun Ghia, Chartered Accountant
from the PIO, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-opearative
Societies, Mumbai Division. Tarun
Ghia had requested information regarding: copies of
appointment orders of auditors and other papers. He had paid Rs.600 as was
demanded for providing the copies. The Chief Information Commissioner, Mr.
Suresh Joshi wrote, "Out of this, 30 days are allowed to provide
information under the law + 15 days period was from the date of intimation to
pay fees and actual payment of fees when subtracted makes a delay of 39 days.
Therefore, there was a delay of 39 days in supplying information by the Public
Information Officer and the Divisional Joint Registrar. The
applicant in spite of paying fees suffered by this delay. The Public
Information Officer while explaining delay has given reasons, but they were all
administrative in nature, and therefore, they cannot be considered. It is
expected that the demanded information should be provided to common citizens by
use of computer equipment. But as aforesaid, the Public Information Officer has
delayed in providing information by 39 days, which was not justifiable.
Therefore I order as follows :
Decision :
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. Amount paid by the Appellant
Rs.600 be paid back to him, as information was not
provided in time.
3. For delay in providing information
of 39 days to the appellant, the Public Information Officer is held responsible
and therefore, a penalty of Rs.9750 is levied upon him. The Commissioner of
Co-operation would recover that amount from his salary and will deposit the
same under the prescribed accounting head and will intimate the Commission.
I am of the opinion that it takes time
to change the mindset of bureaucrats. We must work to instill a positive
attitude in PIOs and encourage, motivate and inspire
them to provide information to the seekers, which is their right. At this stage
when they are slowly getting used to provide information to the citizens, we
should not, by levying heavy penalties on them, make them become negative and
non-cooperative and indulge in finding ways and means to refuse information.
Let us continue for one more year to make them more responsible and responsive
by persuasion and creating a stage when they realise
that information belongs to the citizens and not to the Government.
On the last day, 15th October, the
Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh gave
valedictory address. He stated that RTI is a ‘milestone’ in the progress of
democratic values. He advised the audience to guard against the growth of
professional middlemen in the use of the Act, as seen in some other countries.
He stated that it should be seen by all stakeholders that the Act does not
become a tool for promotion of an adversarial relationship between the
different stakeholders, the Government, PIO and the First Appellate
authorities, CIC and civil society. According to the Prime Minister, RTI is
people’s law. The Prime minister finally assured the participants at this
convention and to all stakeholders that the Government would make a sincere endeavour to strengthen the implementation of the RTI Act
in favour of genuine information seekers.
At the National Convention, after
informal discussion by many citizens, the following resolutions were proposed
and passed :
1. The Government must provide
required resources, facilities, funding and personnel to the Information
Commissions to be able to implement the Right to Information Act.
2. All Public Authorities must fulfil the requirements of S. 4, and a compliance report
should be submitted to the appropriate Information Commissions before
3. The Government must give an
undertaking publicly that no changes will be made in the RTI Act until October,
2008.
4. The Commissions must give an
opportunity for a personal hearing to appellants and complainants.
5. The Commissions should go by the
letter and spirit of the law, ensuring that all denials of information are only
as per the exemptions listed in the Act.
6. The Government must ensure a
common name in whose favour the application fees can
be made by demand drafts or postal orders, and increase the modes of payment of
these fees.
The same were presented to the Prime
Minister of India.
I conclude by opining that the
deliberations at this National Convention will go a long way in strengthening
the operation and effectiveness of the Right to Information Act.