RTI Problems

Slide 1: March 12, 2007 Discussion on Problems faced in using “Right to Information Act” (SUMMARY) Hitender Jain & Hemant Goswami Citizens Voice

Slide 2: Educating the Public In order to harness the immense potential of the Right to Information Act and for its effective implementation, it is very important that public is made aware about the RTI. It is seen that people are generally not aware regarding the law and procedures under the RTI Act. The State government and its public authorities were required u/s 26(1)(a), (b) & (c) to organize educational programs for public to promote understanding of RTI but nothing has been done. Citizens Voice

Slide 3: Section 4 – Proactive Disclosure Proactive disclosures u/s 4(1)(b) are very important tool for obtaining information even without asking for it. A very limited government departments have displayed their proactive disclosures u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on the dedicated RTI portal (www.rti.gov.in) or the website of the Punjab Govt. (www.punjabgovt.nic.in), Haryana, HP, Chandigarh or the individual websites of the departments. Though it was mandatory to do so latest by 12th October, 2005, still the information is not available. Even in cases where information is displayed, the quality of proactive disclosure is very poor. The public authorities have generally not displayed information about RTI on notice boards in their offices nor have displayed the name plates of PIOs and APIOs outside their rooms. Citizens Voice

Slide 4: Section 4 – Proactive Disclosure All the public authorities are duty bound u/s 4(3) & 4(4) of the RTI Act to widely disseminate the information prescribed u/s 4(1) through various means of communication including notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, Internet etc. However, this information is not even available on the notice boards of public authorities in Punjab, what to talk of dissemination through other means. Citizens Voice

Slide 5: Issue of PIO’s and Appellate Authorities PIOs do not have any training to deal with RTI applications First Appellate Authorities are almost defunct as usually decisions are not given by them. It is just wastage of time. Citizens Voice

Slide 6: Problem of delay Inordinate delay in deciding cases. Complaints/Appeals filed in December, 2005 are in limbo. One of the reasons for delay is representation on behalf of PIOs by incompetent clerks and junior officials who are neither prepared nor are in a position to make any commitment resulting in repeated adjournments. Frequent and long adjournments of 1- 1½ months are granted. Citizens Voice

Slide 7: Reasons for Delay There are 9 Information Commissioners (In Punjab) but just two proceedings rooms. As a result, only two benches hear cases on any single day resulting in long adjournments. Though the hearings are over by lunch time yet just 15-20 cases are fixed before a Bench on any single day. Though the Commission usually commences hearing at 11.00 AM yet all the parties are called at 10.00 AM. 30-40 people keep on waiting unnecessarily. Citizens Voice

Slide 8: Solution Why can’t Commission set a timeframe of say 90 days for disposing of a case. Why can’t the Commission hold hearings till 5.00 p.m. and fix more cases. It would be prudent to establish 7 permanent benches at different places (In case of Punjab) so that public/officials do not have to travel more than 50 kms. Section 15(7) of the RTI Act, 2005 enables establishment of benches. Citizens Voice

Slide 9: Long rope to the defaulters Though it is mandatory for the Commission u/s 20 to levy penalty if the information is not been provided within 30 days, the Commission arbitrarily refuses to levy penalty. The Commission has absolutely no discretion in this regard. The only thing to be ascertained by the Commission is that whether there was a “reasonable cause” for delay. As a result, the fear of RTI in the minds of government officials is fizzling out at a very fast pace because of the lenient attitude of the Commission. The quantum of penalty is fixed in the RTI Act itself @ Rs.250/- per day subject to a maximum of 25000/-. The Commission does not have any discretion to levy lesser penalty but it arbitrarily imposes penalty less than the prescribed amount. Citizens Voice

Slide 10: VIP Defaulters & Obliging Commission The Commission extends VIP treatment to PIOs. The Commission extends special courtesies to senior government officers. Such drama often takes place in full public view. Extension of niceties to one of the parties by judicial authorities is a matter of serious concern. The government officials are rather the ones who have defied the RTI Act by not providing the information and such persons are given preferential and V.I.P. treatment by the Commission. If the Commission gets so overawed by the presence of senior officers, doubts are bound to arise. Such acts do not show the Commission in good light. These shake the faith of public in the Commission. The cases are not heard as per the serial number mentioned in the Cause List. The serial is often broken to adjust senior government officials. Citizens Voice

Slide 11: Compilation of reports The Commission is supposed to prepare a report on the implementation of RTI Act at the end of every year u/s 25(1). No report is yet available though Commission came into being on 12.10.2005. Citizens Voice

Slide 12: Rules not in agreement The Punjab Right to Information Rules, 2005, Haryana RTI Rules and HP RTI Rules are not in consonance with the substantive law i.e. Right to Information Act. Some of the rules are even ultra vires the Act. Representations with the Government in this regard are pending since December, 2005. Citizens Voice

Slide 13: OTHER ISSUES Some other Important issues which must be addressed Citizens Voice

Slide 14: UNIFORMITY IN RTI RULES The provisions of Section 27 and 28 which empower the “State Governments” and “Competent Authorities” to make their own rules are playing untold bedlam and severely restricting the implementation of the RTI Act. These provisions are being grossly misused by many “Competent authorities,” “State Governments” and the corrupt bureaucracy/officers. Many States and Competent authorities have prescribed fee as high as Rs. 500/- (Instead of Rs. 10/- as prescribed by the Act) for seeking information. Complicated forms and payment methods to deposit RTI fee has been prescribed which makes it nearly impossible for a common citizen (Especially people living under poverty line or those illiterate) to seek information. For example Delhi High Court prescribes a fee of 500 for seeking information (Rule 10 of “Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006”) and has reduced the fine on delinquent official not furnishing information to Rs. 50/- per day (Instead of the prescribed Rs. 250/- per day in the RTI Act). Similarly the State of Himachal Pradesh which has a large population living in poverty has prescribed two complicated forms “A” and “D” for seeking information and inspecting files. Further Himachal Government accepts fee only if it be deposited in the Himachal Government Treasury and three copies of the treasury receipt are deposited along with the two forms. The power granted to the State Government and Competent Authorities under Section 27 and 28 to frame their own rules must be immediately recalled and uniform rules by the Central Government must only be applicable. People from any part of the country must be enabled to seek information from any other part of the country. “One India” should have “One rule”. Citizens Voice

Slide 15: APPOINTMENT & SELECTION OF THE CIC AND SIC The present mode of appointment of the CIC and the SIC as mentioned under Section 12 and 15 is not proper and needs to be changed. • a. The three member recommendation committee for the CIC and other Information Commissioners should include the “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” in place of “a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister,” as mentioned in Section 12(3)(iii). • b. The three member recommendation committee for the SIC and other Information Commissioners should include the “Chief Justice of the High Court of the State” in place of “a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister,” as mentioned in Section 15(3)(iii). • c. No person from the bureaucracy should be appointed as an Information Commissioner unless at-least three years have elapsed since his/her last assignment with the government. The precedence of appointing the relived “Chief Secretaries” as Information Commissioner is detrimental for proper implementation of the RTI Act as many times the Information Commissioners have to listen to appeals against the same officers with whom he/she still enjoys a very emotional or close personal rapport. This often comes in way of passing firm orders and/or penalizing delinquent officials. • d. As far as possible young people involved in social activities with a proven track record and who are adequately qualified should be considered for the position of Information Commissioners. Citizens Voice

Slide 16: TERM OF SERVICE OF THE CIC/ SIC No Information Commissioner should be eligible for any further appointment under the Government of the State or under the Government of India on ceasing to hold office. To ensure that the members of the commission work in an unbiased manner and do their duty without expecting any future gains/returns for any “favour granted,” including such a condition is must. Such a condition is also there in Section 24(3) of “Protection of Human Rights Act 1993,” which reads, “24(3): On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of a State or under the Government of India.” A similar condition should be included in the RTI Act. Citizens Voice

Slide 17: “FACILITATING BODIES” AND NOT AS COURTS Most Information Commissioners are projecting themselves akin “Judges” and “Information Commission Office” as “Court of Law.” This is counter productive and gives an impression of an unfriendly and vexatious system. Such an image is likely to defeat the objective of the RTI Act. Most Information Commissions are also promoting the idea of quoting the earlier decisions of Central Information Commission or the State Commissions as precedence, just as case laws quoted in courts. Our Constitution does not intend to promote such a system and this is the reason that only the “High Court” and the “Supreme Court” have been designated as courts of record and no other tribunal or quasi judicial commission/forum. By promoting a system like that of courts, the distance between the “Commission” and “People” is likely to increase further which would be eventually fatal to the desired objectives. Besides, such a system would also give growth to professionals who are expert in manipulating all such systems and procedure to their advantage. Citizens Voice

Slide 18: Future of Information Commissions Information Commissions are becoming another bureaucratic bodies which are moving away from the common citizenry. Access for common man (And the near 50% illiterates) is reducing day-by-day. By this rate; it will soon become another post-retirement rehabilitation body for political and bureaucratic sycophants. (Assuming that it is not so at present) Citizens Voice

Slide 19: We Must Act & Protect RTI It’s our job to ensure that RTI is not killed by the corrupt and inefficient The spirit of RTI must be maintained Citizens Voice