These are the suggestions given to Vinson Paul, Chief Information Commissioner, Kerala State Information Commission when he was in Palakkad on 23/7/16. By no means exhaustive, it does however suggest overhauling the procedures of the Commission to make it transparent and effective.

1. L.
SUGGESTIONS TO TH,E ClC. KERALA: 23 JUL 2015
ryRight from the word go everything at the KSIC needs to be overhauled. The
following suggestions are listed.
This is preposterouslY erratic as
of now. Complaints about this default have not been acted upon. The
acknowledgements should be dispatched within 24 hours of receipt and
should have the format/details as specified in Govt of Kerala Circular No
168/AR 13 (z)lOglUBPV dated t2 Jan 2009 and DoPT OM No tO/1./2013-tR
dated 06/1012015. Where complainants/appellants have provided e rhail id
it may be used to acknowledge receipt. lmportant points to note are: (i) if
the complaint/appeal has been given a file number by the complainar$t/
appellant it should be quoted and (ii) tentative date by which it will be
disposed of should also be indicated. Currently it is seen that the file
number allotted by the citizens are not quoted even while quoting them in
the cases of communication from PlOs/FAAs.
2. Taking up cases for disposal. This again is whimsical and arbitrary as of
now. The only instances when priority needs to be accorded ig indicated in
the RTI Act itself and that is in cases involving the life or liberty of a person.
And unlike other cases, the cases (the complaints and appeals) under the
RTI Act are simple, straight forward and stand alone and should be taken up
on first in first out basis only.
3. Unwarranted correspondence and hearings. Given the fact that the copies
of the application, reply by the PlO, 1't appeal and reply by the FAA are
enclosed with the 2nd appeal the procedure to be followed by the
Commission/commissioner is only to find answer to the following
questions:
3.1. Was the information sought, partly or wholly, disclosable or not?
3.2. Has the disclosable info been provided or notB
3.3. lf provided, was it within the prescribed time frame or not?
3.4. lf not provided, was the info held by the public authority or not?
3.5. lf not held, was there any legally tenable reason for not holding it
(like destruction as per existing orders with copy of destruction
certificate to be provided as evidence)
3.6. lf it pertained to another public authority was Sec 6(3) complied with
or not?
3.7. Steps 3.1 to 3.6 to be repeated for every public authority to whom
the application has been transferred.
lf there has been any default at any stage, it is only required to give an
opportunity to being heard to the defaulting PIO before imposing the
mandatory penalty as prescribed in Sec 20 of the RTI Act. lt would be prudent

2. to communicate the reasons, if any, for not imposing the penalty, to the
complainant/appellant and get his 'counter' before taking the final decision.
The failure of the FAA has to be taken up with the concerned department for
necessary action.
4. Uploadins decisions on the Web. All decisions should be uploaded on the
official site of the Commission within 24 hours and the URL of the same
communicated to the complainant/appellant along with the copy of the
decision.
5. Other issues.
re. Even the KSIC has not comPlied5.1.
with this requirement of Sec a(1(b) of the RTI Act. 1
5.2. .Compliance with Sec 5. No public authority is complying with Sec 5
of the RTI Act. Though they have designated APIOs they do not;,
accept applications/appeals addressed to other public authorities.
The CAPIOs in Head Post offices do accept applications/appeals
pertaining to central public authorities other than the postal
department too. Complaints about this have not been acted upon.
5.3. Compliance with Seq 5(3). Even now public authorities are quoting
illegal OMs of the DoPT (No 112/2008-lR dated 12 Jun 2008 and No
F.rc/2/2008-lR dated 24 Sep 2010) and refusing to comply with sec
6(3) in spite of the fact that Central lnformation Commission in
Decision No CIC/SM lAl20l1l000278lscll2906 has very elaborately
clarified that Sec 6(3) has to be complied with even in the case of
multiple pu blic authorities.
5.4. Compensatine the complainant/appellant. Sec 19 (8Xb) provides for
compensating the complainant. Considering the fact that the
appellant has to invest his time and resources to pursue appeals only
because of the default of the PlO, it is necessary to compensate the
appellant as a complainant.
5.5. Failure to impose mandatorv penaltv. As on date RTlgate (the loss to
the exchequer due to the failure of the inform'ation commissioners to
impose the mandatory penalty, either due to pure incompetence or
due to pure corru.ption) would be a scam of greater proportions than
the 2G, Coalgate and Vadragate put together. Para L0 of order in WP
(C) No.3B45l2.OO7 of the High Court, Delhi is reproduced herewith for
ready reference:
10. A close ond textual reoding of Section 20 itself reveals thot there
ore three circumstonces, whereby o penalty can be imposed i,e.
(o) Refusolto receive on opplicotion for informotion;
(b) Not furnishing information within the time specified; ond

3. (c) Denying malofidety the request for informotion or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information for destroying
informotion thot was the subject matter of the request.
Eoch of the conditions is prefoced by the infroction "without
reasonoble couse"
5.6. Failure to follow correct procedures. lt is also seen that instead of
following the straight forward procedure of getting the defaulting
PIO for hearing the Commission often hears the PIO holding such
designation at the time of he-aring. This is totally unwarranted and
waste bf time and resources of public servants/exchequer.
5.7. Failure to follow up on decisions. The response to an application
. seeking information on ?
How mony cases ore pending in the courts, os on i0 Apr 20L5,.{'
ogoinst the decisions of the informotion commissioners? Provide
detoils to include the oddress of the court, cose nt)mber, the KSIC File
ond oppeol numbers, the nome of the appellant, the dote of decision,
p e n a ltylh d m i n istyotiv e a cti o n i m po se d/re co m m e n d e d, th e n a m e of
the PIO/FAA who has approached the court, his/her designotion ond
the oddress of the public outhority, present stotus.
the response was 'A suit register is maintained in the state
information commission. lnformation as sought by you is not
consolidated and maintained'! (KSIC letter No 8681/SlC-PtO-G 4/2015
dated 3/6/ts.
ln this context it is pertinentto mention thatthe Punjab and Haryana
High Court had directed the state government to withdraw an appeal
filed by it on behalf of a pto who had been penalised by the stc. lr
had permitted the Plo, K B s sidhu, to file the appeal in his personal
capacity.
5.8. lt is also seen that Plos are not accepting lpos even though pay
orders are a mode prescribed for paying fees a3rd additional fees
(refer para 3(2)(d) and a(3) of the Kerara Right to tnformation
(Regulation of fee and Cost) Rules, 2006.
5.9. Cash is also an option for payment of fee and additional fee or cost.
And the postal department provides an oficial means for payment of
cash to anybody from anybody everywhere through money order.
While even the PIO of the High Court of Kerala accepts this mode the
PlOs in the Secretariat have refused to accept it!
5.10. lt is customary that PlOs, FAAs and lCs respond in the language of the
application/appeal so long as it is in Malayalam, Engrish or even
Hindi. This is so because the nation has decided on the threee
language formula long back and all the three languages are taught in'
schools. However, it is often seen that the public authorities respond
in Malayalam even when the application/ appeal is in English and

4. response has been demanded in the same language. Even if
Malayalam has been accepted as the official language , it cannot ipso
facto be applied even in teh context of RTI Act as this Act empowers
a citizen of this country anywhere in the world to seek information
from any public authority and all citizens cannot be expectd to
acquire knowtedge of regional languages to seek information from
state pu blic a uthorities.
5.11. lt is not rarely that information is given free of cost to the applicants.
But in such cases the cost is required to be made good by the
defaulting PlOs. (Refer para !7 of Kerala Govt GAD (Coordination)
Circular ll No 77000/Cdn5/06/GAD dated 30/tO/2006. ,
5.12. The KSIC is also seen to direct complainants to file 1st appeal even
'
though it is required to receive and inquire into a complaint recdived
undei Sec 18(1) of the RTI Act, The fact that the complainant hat not
quoted this provision cannot be used as an excuse to return the
complaint.
5.13. The information commissioners of the KSIC whenever they hold
sittings outside th6 Commission are seen doing it randomly and not
as per a deliberate planned schedule. A case was reported of a
Chairman of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission holding
sittings at Guruvayur oh the 1st of every month of the Malayalam
calender!
Suffice to say that the omissions and commissions of the information
commissioners have sounded the death knell of the sunshine Act.
Recently it was reported in the media that you had announced that the days of
warnings are over and henceforth penalties will be imposed. Considering that
pay commission awards are implemented in less than a few months, every five
years, it is great treason to keep warning defaulting public servants for over 10
years. But as is truly said 'better late than never'! ;
P M Ravindran
'Aathira', Kalpathy-678003
Tel:0491-2576042
E-mail : raviforjustice@gma il.com
SAVE RIGHT TO INFORMATION. USE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACTI
GET INFORMATION OR... EXPOSE AT LEAST 3 IOIOTS OR TRAITONS* AVONG
PUBLIC SERVANTS:
THE PUBLIC IruT'ORVATION OFFICER, THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTIjORITY AND THE
I NFoRMATIOT COVNAISSIONER I
*AN rOtO-r tS ONE wHO DOES NOT KNOW THE JOB HE IS PAID TO DO AND A
TRAITOR IS ONE WHO KNOWS IT BUT DOES IOT OO ITI