The Right To
Information
For
BCAJ June 2006
Narayan Varma
The decision
of the Information Commissioner dated 30th March in Appeal No. 22/IC(A) 2006,
that I reported in May issue of BCAJ, has become the subject of hot discussion
and debate in the media, at various meetings of RTI activists and in legal
circles. Main confusion and controversy rest on the point of deciding which Act
overrules which — whether provision of S. 138 of the IT Act overrides S. 22†
of the RTI Act or vice-versa. I shall discuss this in detail in a later
article. Today, I invite readers to express their views.
However, I may
mention that 3 more decisions of the Information Commissioner pertaining to the
information under the Income-tax Act have been given. These also shall be
discussed in a subsequent issue.
The RTI
Act
To continue
the study . . . . . .
S. 5 of the
RTI Act deals with designation of the Public Information Officers (PIO).
Every public authority [S. 2(h)] is obliged to designate as many officers as it
has administrative units or offices. In the Income-tax Department at Mumbai,
every CIT and every CIT(A) is PIO. Each Public
Authority is also required to designate at each sub-divisional level or other
sub-district level an officer as Assistant PIO to receive the applications for
information or appeals under the Act. Ss.(3) provides
that every PIO shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and
render reasonable assistance to such persons.
S. 6 deals
with ‘Request for obtaining information’.
Request for
information can be made in writing or through electronic means in English,
Hindi or the official language of the area (Marathi for
Very important
provision made in this Section is that the applicant is not required to give
any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except
those that may be necessary for contacting him.
Ss.(3) provides that when an application is made to a public
authority for an information which is held by another public authority or the
subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another
public authority, the first public authority shall transfer the application or
an appropriate part thereof to the other public authority and also inform the
applicant immediately about such transfer. Time limit is also set for such transfer
which in no case shall be later than five days from
the date of receipt of the application.
S. 7 covers provisions for disposal of request.
Every
application has to be disposed of within 30 days of the receipt of the request
(in some specific context up to 40 days). The PIO has to, within maximum 30
days, either provide the information on payment of prescribed fees (fixed under
the rules) or reject the request for any reasons specified in S. 8 and S. 9.
In case the
information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be
provided within 48 hours of the receipt of the request. If the PIO fails to
give the decision on the request for information within the time as stated
above, he shall be deemed to have refused the request.
The Section
also makes provision for the manner in which the cost of providing information
shall be communicated, recovered, etc. and also states that such fees shall be
reasonable and no such fees shall be charged if the applicant is a person who
is below poverty line.
Interesting provision is made U/ss.(6), which states that if the PIO fails to comply within
the specified time limits, information shall be provided free of charge.
Where the
request for information pertains to a third party, the PIO has to take into
consideration the representation made by a third party u/s.11. Finally, this
Section provides that when the request for information is rejected, the PIO has
to communicate to the applicant (i) the reasons for
such rejection (ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection
may be preferred, and (iii) particulars of the appellate authority
Other News :
v Former IRS officer, Arvind Kejriwal, Founder of ‘Parivartan’,
addressed various NGOs and RTI activists at BCAS conference room on 3rd May. It
is decided to hold RTI public campaign for a fortnight, 1st to 15th July, at
various cities in
v The RTI Clinic run by BCAS Foundation at BCAS office is doing
fine ! Four sittings have already taken place, citizens have come from distant suburbs to seek
guidance which is satisfactorily provided. Many of our members also came for
assistance and to know more about RTI. We hope to have more visitors in months
to come.
v State Chief Information Commissioner, Suresh Joshi reports
that though his office is in need of manpower (allotted a staff of 16, just
have 12, with half of them on a temporary basis) he hears almost 60 to 70 cases
every month. He has fined a superintendent engineer of MMRDA, a deputy commissioner
of Pune Municipal Corporation and an assistant
engineer of the MSEB for not co-operating with the appellant. He has also
censured 25 officers for not providing accurate, or
providing inadequate information. The RTI office is also providing the judgement in Marathi, to facilitate people staying in rural
areas. All the judgements delivered by him are put on
the Commissioner’s website.
v An interesting news item that appeared in ‘Outlook’ of
The
right to weave cobwebs around you
Guess who’s
making full use of the Right To Information (RTI) Act ?
Not the public, for whom it was intended, but the self-same master of red tape : the babu. The buzz is
they’re using it to settle scores with colleagues. I & B Ministry mandarins
were first off the block. They found the new law handy to keep tabs on foreign
assignments. When DD and AIR sent its list of hopefuls for a trip to
v Ms. Maja Daruwala,
Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative writes on RTI beautifully and
effectively as under :
“The Right to
Information Act is a powerful tool. It enables citizens to get most information
held by the government. The Act makes real the fundamental right to know. It recognises the difficulties associated with getting
information out of the bureaucracy. So it lays down a large category of
information which the government must put out without being asked; another
category which the government must give if requested by a citizen; and finally,
a residuary category which won’t be given unless it can be shown that it is in
the public interest to give it”.
“In a
democracy, people, not governments, are supreme and this is the truth the
governing classes cannot stomach; they cannot imagine their performance being scrutinised by the great unwashed. The Right to Information
Act was fuelled by the energy of very poor and vulnerable people who created a
movement out of their desperation for good governance. It was passed with the
intent of creating accountability and putting power where it belongs — in the
hands of people. It was designed to reduce the discretions and bias that plague
government decision-making. To compromise these principles would be to dishonour the aspiration of the most vulnerable among us”.