The Right to Information
For BCAJ January,
2007
Narayan Varma
After departure from the normal
contents of this feature for two months (issues of November and December 2006)
I come back to it.
On
The Central Information
Commission has five Commissioners including Chief Information Commissioner. The
Central Information Commis-sion with that strength
disposes appeals, etc. at the rate of more than 200 per month. Some of the
decisions of interest given in December, 2006 are :
·
No. 424 of
CIC ruled that there are no
provisions under the RTI Act for redressal of
grievances relating to service matter. The appellant should have specified the
information required by him, rather than seeking views of the CPIO on the issue
of implementation of pay fixation policy. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Thus, it may be noted that in RTI application one does not ask ‘why’, one can’t
seek an opinion or views, but can seek only the information.
·
Powers of Commission include to
receive and inquire into a complaint from any person (discussed later in
this article). In appeal no. 431 of
In response to the complaint of
Mr. Kamra forwarded to the CPIO, CVC, it offered
detailed comments. The complainant mentioned that he had earlier sent letters
to the CVC, which were returned to him and, thus his appeals were not
entertained by the CVC.
In the detailed comments, the
CPIO has mentioned that the information, as available with them, has already
been furnished and for the remaining information, a request was sent to the
CPWD for providing an action taken report on alleged irregularities in
tendering by XEN, CPWD. The CPIO has thus mentioned that there is no denial of
information to the complainant.
In view of this position, the
complainant was advised that (i) he may directly seek
the information from the CPWD, which holds the information required by him;
(ii) he may also seek inspection of the relevant file, so as not only to
ascertain the availability of documents, but also to identify the required
information. The CPIO was accordingly directed to allow him inspection of the
relevant file, after due application of S. 10(1) of the Act, within 10 days
from the issue of the decision and indicate the convenient date and time for
the same.
·
Decision No. 446 of
In this case, the appellant had
sought certain information relating to the details of entries and remarks made
by the superior officers in the ACRs of some other
officers, who are identified by him. The information sought was denied u/s.8(1)(j) of the Act, on the ground that the disclosure of
such information would not be in the larger public interest.
The appellant had also asked
for the disclosure of the criteria adopted for promotion in the DPCs of March, October and December 1991. The CPIO could
not furnish the information, as it was not available with him. He, therefore,
approached the UPSC, which furnished the information to him.
CIC stated that in a number of
decisions on the subject matter of disclosure of the minutes of DPCs, the Commission has directed the concerned CPIOs to disclose the proceedings of the DPCs, after due application of S. 10(1) of the Act. The
appellant was therefore, advised to approach the CPIO, who may be in possession
of the relevant documents and obtain the required information. CIC held that
contents of ACRs, particularly the remarks made by
the superior officers are treated as confidential information, the disclosure
of which is barred u/s.8(1)(j) of the Act. In view of
this, the CPIO has correctly applied exemption u/s.8(1)(j)
of the Act, from disclosure of the information sought. Same was upheld.
The RTI Act :
To continue the study . . . . . .
S. 18 provides for powers and
functions of the Commission. Duty is cast on the Information Commission (both
the Central and the State) to receive and inquire into complaints of various
types from any person :
·
who has been unable to submit a request for
information to a particular public authority as no PIO is appointed under the
Act,
·
who has
been unable to submit an application or appeal under RTI as assistant PIO has
refused to accept such application or appeal to Appellate Authority or
Information Commission.
·
who has been refused access to any information
requested under the RTI Act
·
who has not been given a response to the
application within the time allowed
·
who has
been required to pay the fee which he considers unreasonable. (S. 7 provides that fee shall be reasonable).
·
who
believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false information.
Finally an omnibus provision
which states that complaint could be in respect of any other matter relating to
request for information or for access to records.
Section provides that the
Commission shall inquire in the matter or initiate an enquiry in respect of the
complaint. Section further provides that for conducting the inquiry the
Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and
compelling them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the
documents or things;
(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any
Court or office;
(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents,
and
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
Non-obstante provision under sub-section (4) empowers
the Commission, notwithstanding anything inconsistent, contained in any other
Act and states that the Information Commission may during the inquiry of any
complaint under this Section, examine any record to which the RTI Act applies,
which is under the control of the public authority and no such record may be
withheld from it on any grounds. Thus, it will be noted that powers to the
Information Commission are very wide and sweeping.
S. 19 deals with Appeals.
·
An appeal arising from the decision of PIO or
no-action on the part of PIO is to be made to the officer senior in rank to the
PIO. Appeal has to be furnished within thirty days from the date of receipt of
application by PIO when no response is received or within thirty days from
expiry of 30 days from the day of the receipt of the decision of PIO. The
Appellate Authority (AA) has been given power to condone the delay in making
the appeal, if he is satisfied that delay was on account of sufficient cause.
·
Such appeal can also be made by third party
whose information is to be disclosed and for which u/s.11 he has received the
notice from the PIO.
·
Ss.(3) provides for a
second appeal i.e., appeal against the decision of or non-action from
Appellate Authority. Such appeal is to be made within 90 days from the date on
which the decision should have been made or was actually received. Such appeal
shall be before Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information
Commission (SIC) as the case may be. CIC/SIC also have been given power to
condone the delay, if it is for sufficient cause.
·
If the appeal made is on the decision of PIO
related to information of a third party, CIC/SIC shall give a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to that third party.
·
It is provided that in any appeal proceedings,
the onus to prove that denial of a request was justified shall be on PIO who
denied the request.
·
Unlike under the tax-laws, under the RTI Act,
strict time limits are provided for the authorities to take decisions. Hence,
for an appeal to AA, time limit for disposal of an appeal is fixed for 30 days
from the receipt of the appeal and after recording reasons in writing, 15 more
days i.e., in all, total of 45 days. However, unfortunately, no time
limit is provided for disposal of an appeal by CIC and SIC. That is the reason
why there have been inordinate delays at all Information Commissions. It is
reported that Chief Central Information Commissioner has assured RTI activists
that internally the Commission shall fix time limit of 90 days for disposal of
all complaints and appeals.
The decision of CIC/SIC is
binding to all. Powers have been given to CIC/SIC to :
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may
be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act,
including :
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a
particular form;
(ii) by
appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be;
(iii) by
publishing certain information or categories of information;
(iv) by
making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance,
management and destruction of records;
(v) by
enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its
officials;
(vi) by
providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of S. 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant
for any loss or other detriment suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
(d) reject the application.
Other News :
·
As stated earlier, S. 7 of the RTI Act provides
that fee payable to get information under the RTI Act has to be reasonable and
u/s.18, complaint can be filed to CIC, if the applicant is required to pay an
amount of fee which he considers unreasonable. In one case, the Department of
Rural Development in Orissa asked the applicant to
pay Rs.1.22 lakhs for accessing information sought.
When the complaint was made to the Appellate Authority, he said that it could
have happened due to a misunderstanding between the applicant and the PIO. It
is not reported what finally happened.
·
In a landmark decision, the Karnataka
Information Commission (KIC) has ruled that evaluated answer-papers should be
made available to anybody who wishes to see them and cannot be kept
confidential for the benefit of the examiners.
The Commission has ordered the
Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to make available the answer-papers
free of cost to applicant E. Rama-murthy, who sought
copies of four answer-papers of the gazette probationers’ examinations, 1998.
State Chief Information
Commissioner, K. K. Misra and State Information
Officer K. A. Thippeswamy rejected the KPSC’s plea, which said answer-papers cannot be made public
as they are exempted u/s.8(i)(e)
and u/s.8(i)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
KIC has rejected the Central
Information Commission’s decision u/s.8(i)(j) saying that seeking evaluated answer-papers is
personal and has no relationship to any public interest or activity. On this
decision, it records :
“This view does not appear
correct. Although the applicant is not to be asked the purpose for seeking
information, providing the information would ensure impartiality, objectivity,
and fairness of the evaluation by examiners ap-pointed
by PSCs.”
·
In an order that is the first of its kind, the
Central Information Commission has ordered the
Dhanajay Tripathi, an applicant for the Masters in Physical
Education course had complained to the Commission that the university had
denied him admission as he had filed an RTI application seeking certain
information that the university did not want to divulge. In its order, the
Commission has directed the university to not only admit Dhanajay,
but also ensure that he is not victimised in the
future.
·
One 90 years-old widow, Krishna Devi Jhalani, had filed an
application for extension of her passport in March. With no response from the
Passport Office for three months, Jhalani requested
for information regarding her application under the Right to Information Act.
Despite a reminder issued a month later, Jhalani was
unable to get a response to her query. Incidentally, the Regional Passport
Officer is also the PIO in this case.
Jhalani
approached the Commission, which asked for the PIO’s
comments but drew a blank. Matters came to a head on November 6 when no one
from the Passport Office attended the hearing fixed by the CIC for the case.
In his order, the Information
Commissioner O. P. Kejariwal said :
“Could there be a more callous and apathetic attitude of a government servant
towards not just a member of the public but also a statutory body like the
Information Commission ? It is such officers who bring a bad name to the
bureaucracy and tarnish its image”.
The Commission has directed the
foreign ministry to intervene in the matter and ensure that action is taken
within 15 days. It also asked the Ministry of External Affairs to take strict
action against the PIO.
I end by quoting the CJI
designate, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, first Dalit Chief Justice of
“Much information was earlier
suppressed by the government, giving air to corruption, but now RTI gives
people a feeling of participation”.
·
The dates for next RTI Clinic are :