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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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