The RTI Act, the only pro-democracy and citizen-friendly law in India, has been so blatantly subverted by the very information commissioners tasked, empowered, equipped and paid to enforce it that it is today at best just a tool to identify the idiots and traitors among public servants.

1. SUBVERSION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
IN KERALA LED BY THE KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION ITSELF
I believe that even if the Right to Information Act alone is implemented honestly it
would go a long way in meeting its objective- ‘contain corruption and to hold
Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed’- as outlined
in its preamble. Unfortunately the information commissioners appointed to enforce
this law have subverted it totally, blatantly and with impunity, rendering information
commissions nothing more than rehabilitation homes for retired bureaucrats (only).
This has led to a situation where a Save Right to Information Campaign has to be led
with the Mission Statement
Save Right to Information. Use Right to Information Act.
Get information or......
Expose at least three idiots/traitors* among public servants!
1. The Public Information Officer (PIO)
2. The First Appellate Authority (and the head of public authority where the
head of the public authority is not the FAA!) and
3. The Information Commissioner (IC including the Chief IC)
* An idiot is one who does not know the job s/he is getting paid to do and a
traitor is one who knows it but does not do it. Provided that even an idiot can
be branded a traitor based on the consequences of his/her action
Taking the specific case of the Kerala State Information Commission (KSIC) and its ICs
the following facts are placed on record.
1. There is not a single section of the Act which is being abided by.
2. Even the information required to be disclosed as per Sec 4(1)(b) is not found
disclosed completely or correctly.
3. There is absolutely no action found to be taken on Secs 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d), 4(2), 4(3)
or 4(4).
It is to be noted that the KSIC is probably the only public authority in the State to
have commenced its functions in a fully modern office, with even a web site of its
own. And the sordid fact is that even the decisions of the information
commissions are not available at their web site, except for some randomly
chosen ones and that too not the latest ones.
4. Sec 5 of the RTI Act has also been subverted. Here even though Assistant Public
Information Officers have been designated in many offices their tasks are not
being executed as per the law.
The law demands that these APIOs accept the applications, appeals and fees and
forward them to the PIOs of the concerned public authorities and not merely to
the PIOs of the same public authority. This is made amply clear in Kerala GO MS

2. No 384/2005/GAD dated 28 Oct 2005 and para 5 of Govt of Kerala Circular 1 of
file No 77000/Cdn 5/06GAD dated 30 Oct 2006.
In spite of this KSIC had issued an obnoxious letter of 5/10/2007 (No 6009/SIC-
Gen2/2007) to the PIO, O/o the RDO, Palakkad directing that PIO not to accept
any applications, complaints, appeals and ask the person to send them directly to
concerned public authorities. This was during the tenure of the 1st
CIC, Palat
Mohandas, who had been the Chief Secretary to the GoK earlier. He also has the
dubious distinction of deciding (Refer decision in CP No 882/2007/SIC dated 31
Mar 2008) that the office of the Finance Minster is not a public authority under
the RTI Act.
5. Sec 6 also has been subverted blatantly by the public authorities with the
connivance of the ICs.
In the matter of 6(1) the law provides for submitting applications (and by
extension appeals too) in English, Hindi or the regional language of the area in
which the application is submitted. It goes without saying that when applications
and appeals are submitted in these languages the public authority is required to
reply in the same language. This does not happen and quite a few PIOs, appellate
authorities and even the KSIC can be seen deliberately replying only in
Malayalam.
The RTI Act being a pan India law where any Indian citizen can seek any
information from any public authority the subversion takes a dimension of
horrible proportions where citizens other than those who know Malayalam
cannot seek information from any public authority in Kerala.
Sec 6(1) also provides for filing applications through electronic means. It implies
payment of the application fees and, by extension, cost too. However the rules
have not explicitly provided for this. But the provision to pay by cash could be
effectively used coupled with the eMO service available through post offices. And
I have personally used it with the High Court of Kerala, the Raj Bhavan itself and a
few other public authorities too. But this is not being accepted by many, including
the office of the Chief Secretary to the GoK.
In this context I had the interesting experience of being provided with free copies
of the documents for which cost had been demanded. The then PIO of the GAD
asked me to deposit the cost in the treasury and provide the proof of such
payment. When I insisted that payment by cash was an option under the Rules
the FAA directed the copies to be provided free of cost. I had then complained at
the CM’s Public Grievance Cell. With no response on action taken, an application
under the RTI Act just elicited the reply that it had been forwarded to the GAD!
A later application under the RTI Act to the PIO of the O/o the Chief Secretary to
find out if cash payment was being accepted by the PIOs in the Secretariat was
transferred to various departments (horrible state of affairs, isn’t it? The office of
the Chief Secretary doesn’t know the rules to be followed by all the departments
in the Secretariat.) And some of them had responded stating that they do. Many
hadn’t. And even as on date it is doubtful if they are doing it.

3. Sec 6(2) explicitly states that the applicant is not required to give any reasons for
seeking information. But still many appeals and complaints are dismissed stating
that there is no public interest involved.
Sec 6(3) has also been violated with impunity what with the present Chief
Information Commissioner, Vinson M Paul, himself going around telling public
authorities that they need to provide only whatever information is available with
them and to direct the applicant to other public authorities for the rest of the
information sought.
I had the opportunity of providing Vinson M Paul with a copy of the decision
dated 16 Jun 2011 of the Central Information Commission in Appeal No.
CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG. His response was that the decisions of the Central
Information Commission were not applicable to Kerala. On pointing out that the
laws and orders of the apex court quoted in that decision were applicable pan
India he had no reply. In this decision, the IC had quoted Sec 13 of the General
Clauses Act , 1897 and apex court decisions in K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab
1960 SCR (2) 89, Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1826
and J. Jayalalitha v. UOI & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1912 to hold that ‘there is nothing in
the Act which would show that Parliament intended that the transfer should only
be to one public authority.’
The public authorities in Kerala have gone one step ahead and are not forwarding
the application to even another public authority in most cases.
6. The proviso to Sec 7(1) of the RTI Act states that where the information sought
for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-
eight hours of the receipt of the request.
It follows that these are the only applications, and by logical extension,
complaints and appeals that can be given priority and disposed of out of turn. But
the way the KSIC has been disposing complaints and appeals is to say the least
wayward, whimsical and arbitrary. It goes without saying that it also in violation
of the first come, first served principle that should govern management of
queues.
7. The most damaging has been the subversion of Sec 20 of the RTI Act. The law
provides for penalizing defaulting PIOs even for delays when the complete
information sought has been provided and what we find is that even when the IC
orders information to be provided no penalty is imposed when actually even if
the information is provided on the date of the order a penalty of Rs 25000/-
should be imposed.
This has not only led to the murder of the law that the ICs have been tasked,
empowered, equipped and paid to enforce but it has also resulted in
considerable loss to the exchequer.
This failure of the IC is obviously prosecutable under Sec 219 of the IPC. But at
the least it is sufficient ground to remove the IC under Sec 17(3)(d) of the RTI Act.
The possibility of ICs accepting bribes from the defaulting PIOs, for not penalizing
them, cannot be ruled out as not being penalized helps the PIO to keep his official
service record clean.

4. The failures of the ICs have been brought to the notice of concerned authorities on
earlier occasions starting with ‘SUGGESTIONS TO THE CIC, KERALA: 26 JAN 2007’,
handed over in person to Palat Mohandas, then CIC, when he had come to address a
gathering of Rotarians at Ottapplam, Palakkad. More had followed leading to the
first application to the then Governor to remove him under Sec 17(3)(d) of the RTI
Act (My letter RTI/comp-ker gov-ksic-071107 dated 07 Nov 2007). It had merely
been forwarded to the Chief Minister for necessary action.
Forget about doing the minimum essential to prevent misuse and abuse of public
office and protecting the right of citizens to have a working and accountable
government, the GOK has the dubious distinction of letting one IC, Natarajan, a
former DIG, to continue in office with all pay and perks without allowing him to do
any job for almost 3 years.
I had also addressed the then Governor, Mr Nikhil Kumar, about the issues related to
his address at the inaugural function of a seminar conducted by the KSIC on
11/10/2013. My letter Pers/kergov-rti-fb-131016 dated 13 Oct 2013 refers.
The fact is that certain facts pertaining to subversion of the law was sought to be
brought to the notice of the Governor before he addressed the seminar. It was seen
that this had not even been brought to the notice of the Governor before the event!
This led to the Governor to, apparently, parrot a script prepared by the CIC, KSIC
himself, the public servant responsible for the ultimate subversion of the law he had
been tasked, empowered, equipped and paid to enforce.
During the then CM’s public contact programs the matter had been taken up
through my letter Comp/cm contpgm-ksic-221111 dated 22 Nov 2011. The only
response to that, after doggedly pursuing it, was from the GAD (their letter No
90105/Cdn 5/11/GAD dated 1/6/2012 refers) stating that ‘the complaint had been
forwarded to the Secretary, State Information Commission for necessary action.
Being a constitutional body State Government could not interfere in the functioning
of the State Information Commission.’
This is evidently a gross dereliction of duty, especially given the provisions of Secs 17
and 27 of the RTI Act. Sec 17(3) of the RTI Act empowers the Governor to remove
the CIC and IC even if he ‘is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in
office by reason of infirmity of mind or body;’. And what else could be the opinion of
the Governor when a CIC decides that the Finance Minister’s office is not a public
authority under the RTI Act or another one goes telling public authorities that they
need not comply with Sec6(3) of the RTI Act?
Sec 27 (2)(e) and (f) also empowers the appropriate Government to make rules
regarding ‘the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or
State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under
sub-section (10) of section 19; and any other matter which is required to be, or may
be, prescribed.

5. Sec 28(2)(iv) also empowers the competent authority to make rules on ‘any other
matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed’ to carry out the provisions of
this Act.
I know of at least one instance where the CIC of UP SIC had been removed from
office.
These have been brought to the notice of the CM, Kerala but no action seems to
have been taken and the performance of the KSIC has been only deteriorating by the
day.
I had been compelled to even challenge the current CIC, KSIC to produce copies of at
least 4 of his decisions that would stand scrutiny of law in the matter of procedure
followed and decisions taken. This was done during a press conference convened at
Palakkad especially for that purpose. And when the media did not report this most
important issue the copy of the press release was sent through e mail to the CIC
himself.
It is true that the current Prime Minister has been working tirelessly to cleanse the
system, even compulsorily retiring some bureaucrats found not desirable to continue
in office. But it would be unfair to expect that one person can do this herculean task
effectively when other competent authorities do not lend their shoulders to the
cause.
To conclude, the Executive organ of Government, has reduced government
administration to a synonym for corruption and treason. This has to change, failing
which former Supreme Court judge, Markandey Katju’s warning that a French
revolution like catastrophe may visit India soon may turn prophetic.
P M Ravindran, raviforjustice@gmail.com 28 Dec 2019