Law Group 6 - RTI

7/27/2019 Law Group 6 - RTI

1/51

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005

PRESENTED BY GROUP 6

ANAHITA DOTIVALA-42

KUNAL GALA-44

KOPAL AGRAWAL-46

KSHITIJ SHEH-48

PRATIKSHA SHETTY-50

COLLIN RODRIGUES-52

RAHUL TIWARI-54

NITESH JAIN-56

TEJAL JOSHI-58

POOJA VANJANI-60


2/51

No. Title Page no.

1 Introduction 3

2 Terminologies & Important Definitions 6

3 Important Sections

i. Sec 3 8

ii. Obligation of public authorities (Sec4) 8

iii. Request for obtaining information (Sec 6) 11

iv. Disposal of request (Sec 7) 13

v. Exemption from disclosure of information (Sec 8) 14

vi. Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases (Sec 9) 17

vii. Third party information (Sec 11) 17

viii. Criteria For Appointment And Removal Of SCIO & SIC (Sec 15 & 17) 17

4 When Can person make second appeal 19

5 Powers and Functions of information commission 20

6 Penalties 22

7 Amendments to be introduced 24

8 Recent Gazette Notifications 25

9 Comparative study 26

10 Case Studies 28

11 RTI & impact on stakeholders 33

12 Questionnaire 47

13 Survey 49

14 Conclusion And Recommendations 50

15 Bibliography 51

2


3/51

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

INTRODUCTION

The Right to Information Act, 2005, gives the citizens the right to obtain information from the government

and government controlled organizations. In a democracy, the government is accountable to the people.

The people can make government accountable to them only if they have adequate information on its

functioning and that of its organizations. The objectives of the Act, thus, are tied to the principles of

democracy, accountability and governance.

Right of the citizen Duty of the Public Authority

Right to Information

The Act gives you the right to access: information held by a public authority, information under the

control of a public authority and includes the right to:

Inspect work, documents, records; take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;

take certified samples of material; obtain information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video

cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a

computer or in any other device.

Importance Of RTI

We, The People of India, resolved to secure ourselves. Liberty of thought, expression through the preamble

to our Constitution, 56 years ago. Article 19(1) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression

and as recognized by the Supreme Court this also implies a full right to information.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act) has established the necessary practical regime of right to

information. Right to information can empower citizens to take charge by participating in decision-making

and by challenging corrupt and arbitrary actions at all levels. With access to government records, citizens

can evaluate and determine whether the government they have elected is delivering the results that areexpected. RTI is thus a tool that can change the role of the citizens from being mere spectators to that

of being active participants in the process of governance.

3


4/51

Salient features of the Act

Universal access to information held by the public authorities- all citizens have access to information,

pertaining to any period, in any form, in official language.

Right to information includes inspection of records, works and taking certified samples of material.

'Information' broadly defined-includes: records, e-mails, samples and models

Applies to all public authorities, NGOs, private bodies subject to provisions

Public Information Officers (PIO) to provide information

PIO has the duty to assist requesters and transfer the request to proper public authority, if required.

No need to give reasons for requesting information but PIO should provide reasons for rejection of the

request

Information to be provided expeditiously, within 30 days of receipt of request

Benefits of the Act:

Citizen can seek information about applications or complaints regarding ration cards, electricity

connections, water connections and so on, pending with the public authorities &force them to redress

grievances quickly without any need of paying bribes. The Long title of the Act states that this Act

promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.

Act Application

It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Act gives you the right to access to information held by public authorities which includes

authorities, bodies, institution of self government

The Act shall not apply to central intelligence and security agencies specified in the Second Schedule,

and other agencies excluded by the State Governments through a Gazette Notification. However, one canseek information in respect of allegations of violations of human rights from the excluded organizations.

They may provide the information within 45 days with the approval of the Information Commission

concerned.

Private Bodies covered

Private bodies are not directly covered. But all the information relating to private bodies which can be

accessed by a public authority can be accessed by you.

4


5/51

Non-Government organizations covered

One can access information from non-Government organizations substantially financed directly or

indirectly by Government funds.

Fee for Seeking Information

A person who desires to seek some information from a public authority is required to send, along with theapplication, a demand draft or a bankers cheque or an Indian Postal Order of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten),

payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority as fee prescribed for seeking information. Rates of

fee as prescribed in the Rules are given below:

(a) rupees two (Rs. 2/-) for each page ( in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied;

(b) for information provided in diskette or floppy, rupees fifty (Rs. 50/-) per diskette or floppy; and

(c) for information provided in printed form, at the price fixed for such publication or rupees two per page

of photocopy for extracts from the publication.

(d) For inspection of records, the public authority shall charge no fee for the first hour. But a fee of rupees

five (Rs. 5/-) for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof) shall be charged.

(e) If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee

Case let:

The trend of asking for information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act is growing among Mohali

residents with each passing month, giving sleepless nights to the police. Asking for details about how

many police personnel were posted at each police station and how many complaints are being investigated

by each police inspector, the district police have received a total 2,250 RTI queries from various sections of

society in Mohali district during the period of January to August this year. A total of 1,850 queries have

been disposed off, while details about other queries are being compiled by different wings of the district

police including traffic, security and CID. Interestingly, the last three months saw a rise in the number RTI

queries when between 250 and 275 people approached the district police, filing various queries related to

their pending applications. Gaganpreet Singh of Phase-VIII said, "He filed an RTI query for ascertaining

the status of his complaint, which was filed in connection with a theft case, and received the status of

investigation within 20 days. Though the investigation is still pending, police failed to recover my stolen

property."

The RTI branch of district police is headed by SP (headquarters) Mandhir Singh. Police sources said

though some of the complaints are baseless including how many fans were installed in one police station,

some queries were related to other districts and were forwarded to the districts concerned for replies.

Mandhir Singh said, "Replies of around 400 pending RTI queries are being prepared and there are some

5
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/RTI-querieshttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/RTI-queries


6/51

queries, which became pending, when applicants were not satisfied with the submitted responses and they

dragged the RTI wing to the office of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), Chandigarh."

The usual fee of filing RTI application is Rs 10 and there is an additional fee which is charged on the basis

of per page reply.

6


7/51

Terminologies & Important Definitions

1) "Competent authority" means-

i. The Speaker in the case of the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State or a

Union territory having such Assembly and the Chairman in the case of the Council of States or

Legislative Council of a State;ii. The Chief Justice of India in the case of the Supreme Court;

iii. The Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of a High Court;

iv. The President or the Governor, as the case may be, in the case of other authorities established or

constituted by or under the Constitution;

v. The administrator appointed under article 239 of the Constitution;

Competent Authority Current:

Speaker Meira Kumari House Of People

Chief Justice Of India - Shri SH Kapadia Supreme Court (Justice Altamas Kabir will be the new Chief

Justice of India and will assume charge Sep 29)

2) "Public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or

constituted-

(a) By or under the Constitution;

(b) By any other law made by Parliament;

(c) By any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any-

(i) Body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) Non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds

provided by the appropriate Government;

Public Authority refers to self government, formed under constitution or law made by Parliament or State

Legislature. It can also be considered if the notification is issued by public government if the non-

government is financed by public authority for which any sort of proof can be accepted.

3) "Record" includes-

(a) Any document, manuscript and file;

(b) Any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;

(c) Any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and

(d) Any other material produced by a computer or any other device;

7


8/51

4) "Right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or

under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-

(i) Inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) Taking notes extracts or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) Taking certified samples of material;

(iv) Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other

electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other

device;

5) CIC/SIC:

The Central Information Commission/State Information Commission decides the appeals and

complaints and conveys its decision to the appellant/complainant and first appellate authority/ Public

Information Officer. The Commission may decide an appeal/complaint after hearing the parties to the

appeal/complaint or by inspection of documents produced by the appellant/complainant and Public

Information Officer or such senior officer of the public authority who decided the first appeal. If the

Commission chooses to hear the parties before deciding the appeal or the complaint, the

Commission will inform the date of hearing to the appellant or the complainant at least seven clear

days before the date of hearing. The appellant/complainant has the discretion to be present in person

or through his authorized representative at the time of hearing or not to be present.

8


9/51

Important Section of Right to Information Act 2005

Sec 3:

Subject to provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.

Sec 4: OBLIGATIONS OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

The Public authorities shall publish the below within one hundred and twenty days of the enactment (by end

October 2005):

The particulars of its organization, functions and duties;

The powers and duties of its officers and employees;

The procedure followed in its decision making process, including channels of supervision and

accountability;

The norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;

The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records used by its employees for discharging its

functions;

A statement of the categories of the documents held by it or under its control;

The particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by the members of

the public, in relation to the formulation of policy or implementation thereof;

A statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more personsconstituted by it. Additionally, information as to whether the meetings of these are open to the public, or the

minutes' of such meetings are accessible to the public;

A directory of its officers and employees;

The monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of

compensation as provided in its regulations;

The budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures

and reports on disbursements made; The manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details and

beneficiaries of such programmes;

Particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it;

Details of the information available to, or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;

The particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a

library or reading room, if maintained for public use;

The names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers

9


10/51

DUTIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY

10


11/51

CASELET

CJI vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal

An RTI request, filed by Agrawal at Supreme Court on November 10, 2007, started a legal process that set off

the ongoing debate on whether or not judges of Supreme Court and High Courts should be made to publicly

disclose information about their assets and liabilities. Agarwal ("the applicant") made an application to the

CPIO on 10th November, 2007 under the Act making two-fold request:

(i) to furnish a copy of the 1997 resolution of the Full Court of the Supreme Court, and

(ii) information on any such declaration of assets etc. ever filed by Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court

and further information if High Court Judges are submitting declaration about their assets etc. to respective

Chief Justices in States.

The first request was granted by the CPIO and a copy of the 1997 resolution was made available to theapplicant. The CPIO, however, on 30th November, 2007 informed the applicant that the information sought

under the second head was not held or under the control of the registry (of the Supreme Court) and, therefore,

could not be furnished and is exempt from disclosure under RTI. The applicant preferred an appeal before the

nominated appellate authority. Here again the applicant got no response for the second request. However the

Agarwal moved with the request to the CIC and then the matter went further to the Delhi High Court.

In a landmark judgement, the Delhi High Court ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is

a public authority and hence it comes within the purview of the Right to information Act (RTI). The court ruled

that the CJI must make public the disclosure of assets of Supreme Court (SC) judges made to him on the

official website of the apex court.

This judgement was only to depict that the level of transparency and accountability that needs to be

maintained in the RTI Act. Higher the judiciary, higher is the accountability towards the public at large.

11


12/51

Sec 6: REQUEST FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION

(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or

through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application

is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to-

The CPIO or SPIO of the concerned public authority;

The Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer

specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her. (In case the request cannot be made in

writing, the CPIO or SPIO shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to

reduce the same in writing)

(2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the

information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.

(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for 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 public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part

of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such

transfer. This should be done within five days from the date of receipt of the application.

CASELET

IT returns of Political parties

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is a group which works to improve governance and

strengthen democracy by continuous work in the area of Electoral and Political Reforms.

They used the RTI Act to demand disclosure of income tax (I-T) returns of political parties, resulting in a

landmark decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which held that such a disclosure was in

public interest and so must be allowed.

ADR filed an RTI request in February 2007 at Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), seeking information as

to whether 21 major political parties of the country were filing their I-T returns for the last five assessment

years.It also wanted to know the PANs of the 21 parties and requested copies of their I-T returns and

corresponding I-T assessment orders for the last five years. Predictably, the request was turned down by various

I-T commissioners except those with jurisdictions over PDP, AGP and BJD.

ADR then appealed to the CIC. After long hearings and filing of protracted submissions by all the parties,

information commissioner A.N. Tiwari ruled in April 2008 that information, which is otherwise exempt, can

still be disclosed if the public interest so warrants.

ADR finally received the copies of I-T returns filed by political parties.

12


13/51

The CIC decision was a breakthrough in the quest to impose transparency and accountability on unwilling

political parties.

RTI Application Process

13

STEP 1

Consider your problem

frame a question

identify the public authority and PIO you

think has the information.

STEP 2

Draft and submit your

application with application fee

of Rs. 10/- to PIO.

(Produce identity proof of BPL as there

STEP 3

Obtain acknowledgment/ receipt of your

application and the application fee from

the PIO.

(time limit starts from the date of receipt

of your application by the PIO)

STEP 4

PIO has 30 days to approve or reject your

application

If information is not available with

the public authority, PIO shall

transfer the application to relevant

public authority within 5 days and

inform you in writing about suchtransfer

OPTION 1

Application is accepted

OPTION 2

Application is rejected.

PIO to notify you in writing of:

additional fees(cost of

information) to be paid;

information concerning your right

to review the decision, fees, formo access, details of Appellate

Authority and relevant forms tomake an appeal.

PIO has to notify you in writing:reasons for the rejection;

period in which any appeal

can be made;

Details of the Appellate

Authority.

PIO provide you the information.

(Information will be provided free if

provided after the time limits.)

APPEAL

1. If you are not satisfied with

the information.

2. If information is not provided

within the time limits.


14/51

Sec 7: DISPOSAL OF REQUEST

(1) The CPIO or SPIO, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any

case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of the fee as

may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9. (In case 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).

(2) If the CPIO or SPIO, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified

under sub-section (1), the CPIO or SPIO, shall be deemed to have refused the request.

(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost

of providing the information, the CPIO or SPIO, as the case may be, shall send an intimation to the person

making the request, giving-

The details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him.

Information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees

charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit,

process and any other forms.

(4) Where access to the record or a part thereof is required to be provided under this Act and the person to

whom access is to be provided is sensorily disabled, the CPIO or SPIO, shall provide assistance to enable

access to the information, including providing such assistance as may be appropriate for the inspection.

(5) Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant

shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay the fee as may be prescribed.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information

shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits

specified in sub-section (1).

(7) Before taking any decision under sub-section (1), the CPIO or SPIO, shall take into consideration the

representation made by a third party under section 11.

(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the CPIO or SPIO, shall communicate to the

person making the request,-

The reasons for such rejection;

The period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and

The particulars of the appellate authority.

(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would

disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or

preservation of the record in question.

14


15/51

Sec 8: EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen any of the

below:

Disclosure of information which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the

security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to

incitement of an offence;

Disclosure of information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or

tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

Disclosure of information which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State

Legislature;

Disclosure of information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the

disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.

Disclosure of information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship.

Disclosure of information received in confidence from foreign Government;

Disclosure of information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

Disclosure of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or

prosecution of offenders.

Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other

officers.

Disclosure of information which relates to personal information, which has no relationship to any public

activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual (the

information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any

person).

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions

permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public

interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any

occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on

which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that

section.

15


16/51

Exempted Organizations

Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ministry of Finance, Enforcement, Ministry of Finance

Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Finance

Narcotics Control Bureau

Aviation Research Centre

Special Frontier Force

Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs

Central Reserve Police Force, Ministry of Home Affairs

Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Ministry of Home Affairs

Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs

National Security Guard, Ministry of Home Affairs

Research & Analysis Wing of The Cabinet Secretariat

Assam Rifles, Ministry of Home Affairs

Sashastra Seema Bal, Ministry of Home Affairs

Special Protection Group

Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence

Border Road Development Organisation

Financial Intelligence Unit, India

Directorate General Income Tax (Investigation)

National Technical Research Organisation

CASE STUDY:

The Respondent, an architect, made an application under the RTI Act before the Central PublicInformation Officer (CPIO) of DMRC seeking all the structural drawings and other design related

information of the Metro Pillar No. 67 (information), which collapsed on July 12, 2009 killing seven

people. The CPIO of DMRC declined to disclose the information on the ground that it was the intellectual

property of DMRC and maintained that such disclosure was exempted under Sec. 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act,

which protects disclosure of confidential information.2 The Respondent appealed before the Appellate

Authority of DMRC, which concurred with the CPIO. Respondent filed the next Appeal before the Central

Information Commission (CIC).

16


17/51

Before the CIC, DMRC relied on the following exclusions under the RTI Act, to prevent disclosure of the

information sought:

(i) That disclosure of information would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security,

strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State (Section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act);

(ii) The design of the said pillar is the intellectual property of DMRC and therefore disclosure of information

would affect the competitive position of third party (Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act).To further support its stand DMRC placed before the CIC a letter of the Commissioner of Police stating

that since criminal investigations were pending in relation to the collapse of the aforementioned pillar, the

disclosure of the information may hamper the investigation and therefore the information should not be

disclosed under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act.

CIC rejected DMRCs claim of exemption from disclosure of information as follows:

(i) Re Section 8 (1)(d): CIC referred to Section 9 of the RTI Act3 and held that since the DMRC was State

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 9 of the RTI Act, it cannot

deny information under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. (In our view this was not an appropriate

interpretation of the provisions)

(ii) Re Section 8 (1) (a) : CIC held that disclosure of the information pertaining to the particular pillar could

not be held to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or its security and strategic

interests; and

(iii) Re Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act: It was noted by CIC that the Head of Crime Branch of DelhiPolice had informed the CIC that the police investigations were not likely to be adversely affected by the

disclosure of the information sought. In view thereof, this exemption was not considered by the court.

Sec 9: GROUNDS FOR REJECTION TO ACCESS IN CERTAIN CASES

Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a CPIO or a SPIO, may reject a request for information

where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person

other than the State.

Sec 11: THIRD PARTY INFORMATION

Third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public

authority. This means an NRI requesting the information regarding the public authority.

17


18/51

(1) Where a CPIO or a SPIO, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made

under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by

that third party, the CPIO or SPIO, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written

notice to such third party of the request and that it intends to disclose the information or record, or part

thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the

information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a

decision about disclosure of information(except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law).

(2) Where a notice is served by the CPIO or SPIO, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any

information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such

notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the CPIO or SPIO shall, within forty days after receipt

of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under

sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and

give in writing

Sec 15 & Sec 17: Criteria for appointment and removal of SCIO & SIC

Sec 15 (5)

The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons

of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social

service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.

The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall not be a Member

of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory, or hold any other office of

profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.

Sec 17 (1)

Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State

Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the

ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the

Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State

Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

Sec 17 (3)

18


19/51

The Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State

Information Commissioner if a State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner,

as the case may be

is adjudged an insolvent; or

has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude; or

engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or

is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or

has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State

Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.

Case let:

Shri.KK Misra, Karnataka State Chief Information Commissioner under Section 17 (3) (b) & 17 (3) (e) of

the Right To Information Act-2005 was terminated from service.

Section 15 of the Right to Information Act-2005 states that minimum qualification for a candidate who

shall be appointed as State Chief Information Commissioner should have eminence in public

life. Government of Karnataka has been directed by Honble High Court of Karnataka to File criminal cases

against Shri.K.K Misra and prosecute him on charges of Perjury and Withholding documents in

the Rs 2,250 Crores Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project Case. Honble High Courtof Karnataka also directed the Registrar General to file a complaint in this regard under section

388 Cr.PC.

A person who Lies and Cheats to Honble High Court of Karnataka as above cannot be

called as a Person of Eminence In Public Life.

Sec 18: Powers and functions of the information commission

1) Refused to accept for forwarding: suppose a person form the city of Delhi seeking information about

the quality of the water provided by the statutory civic authorities goes to the public information officer

and ask for submission of his application however if the application is refused based on no grounds even

though the application fulfills the criteria for granting information under the act then the information

commission has to address the, the application and inquire about it.

(a) Who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act

19


20/51

(b) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time

limit specified under this Act;

2)unreasonable amount to pay: if an officer demands a fee which is not prescribed under the act or by the

state or central information commission then the information commission has to address to such a complain.

3)Incomplete, misleading, false.

Ex.1) A person from the city of Ahmedabad applies to receive an information about the amount of public

hand pumps installed in his area by the Ahmedabad municipality. The information recieved by him is that in

total 30 hand pumps have been installed in his area of Nani pol.

However in truth only 15 hand pumps have been installed then is such a case of providing false information

the information commission can inquire in the matter

Ex.2) a person who has applied to know about the total expenditure incurred by the local civic body in the

treatment of maternity cases in the local area is provide with the total expenditure incurred on overall health

cases is a misleading information and can be inquired by the information commission.

TIME FOR APPLICATION PROCESS

20

Citizens requestfor information

PIO / APIO


21/51

Sec 19: When can a person make a second Appeal

19 (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified, or is aggrieved by a decision of

the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within

thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer

21

48 HRS. If

question

of LIFE /

LIBERTY

30 days

to GIVE /

REFUSE

30 DAYS TO APPELLATE AUTHORITY

30 TO 35 DAYS FOR COMPLETING TRIAL

90 DAYS TO INFORMATION COMMISSION

30 TO 45 DAYS OR COMPLETING TRIAL


22/51

who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case

may be, in each public authority:.

19 (2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State

Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned

third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.

19 (3) A second appeal against the decision shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision

should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State

Information Commission:

19 (4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case

may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information

Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being

heard to that third party.

Sec 20: PENALTIES

(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at

the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or

the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive

an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1)

22


23/51

of section 7 denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading

information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in

furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application

is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-

five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may

be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central

Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at

the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or

the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and

persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the

time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 denied the request for information or knowingly given

incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the

request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary

action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case

may be, under the service rules applicable to him.

Case-let :

State information commissioner H N Krishna fined an official from Mysore for delaying information sought

under the Right to Information Act. Hearing the petitions filed before the information court, the commissioner

took the taluk panchayat official of K R Pet taluk to task and fined him Rs 5,000. The application was

pending before him for nine months. Information is taxpayers' right and it is the duty of officials to provide

the same to them. The fine amount gets deducted from their salaries. When the officials do not have

information required by an individual, they have to transfer the applications to the other officers or get the

details from them. ((TOI, 24/01/2011)S

Sec 21: Protection of action taken in good faith

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith

done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made there under.

Sec 22. Act to have overriding effect

23


24/51

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the

Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument

having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

This law will have an overriding effect vis-a-vis the official secrets act,1932 and all other orders and laws

passed by the government that restrict information flow to people. The public should be well aware of the

projects, activities, laws and schemes implemented by the government. Under the RTI Act, no citizen can

now be denied information that elected representatives such as MLAs and MPs can get from the government.

It not only covers public authorities at the centre but also the states and local bodies.

Sec 24. Act not to apply in certain organizations

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second

Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such

organizations to that Government.

Any information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be withheld.

However in such case, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information

Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within

forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend by including any other

intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting any organisation already

specified and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as

the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

24


25/51

Amendments to be introduced

The government of India is trying to push through amendments in the RTI act. According to an

organization called Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, the government is attempting to amend the act

quickly and the bill could be tabled soon. The organization has called on the government to stop making

changes in the Right to Information Act. Through its Program Coordinator for its Access to Information

Program, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative has also issued an appeal to the citizens asking them to

pressurize the government from making the changes.

The government of India wants to amend certain parts of the RTI Act to accommodate the NSRA or

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill. The government recently, in September 2011, passed the

Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill. The aim of the NSRA is to establish an Authority and such other

regulatory bodies for regulation of radiation safety or nuclear safety and achieving highest standards of suchsafety based on scientific approach, operating experience and best practices followed by nuclear industry.

This Bill seeks to add a new exemption to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act about nuclear safety matters and

recommends the exclusion of an unspecified number of yet-to-be-established nuclear safety agencies from

transparency obligations by placing them in Schedule 2 of the RTI Act. In simple terms, it means that people

wanting information pertaining to the countrys nuclear plants, its operations and safety procedures, can be

turned away in the name of national security.

25


26/51

RECENT GAZETTE NOTIFICATIONS

DATE 11TH SEPT 12

Sub: Suo motu disclosure on official tours of Ministers and other officials.

Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 requires every public authority

to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to

provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various

means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort

to use the Act to obtain information.

2.

It has been brought to the notice of this Department that public authorities are

receiving RTI applications frequently asking for details of the official tours undertaken

by Ministers and other officials of the Ministries/Departments concerned. In compliance

with the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, it is advised that Public

Authorities may proactively disclose the details of foreign and domestic official tours

undertaken by Minister(s) and officials of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government

of India and above and Heads of Departments, since 1s` January, 2012. The disclosures

may be updated once every quarter starting from 1s` July, 2012.

3.

Information to be disclosed proactively may contain nature of the official tour,

places visited, the period, number of people included in the official delegation and total

cost of such travel undertaken. Exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 may

be taken in view while disclosing the information. These advisory would not apply to

security and intelligence organisations under the second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005

and CVOs of public authorities.

26


27/51

Comparative Analysis

BRAZILS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW 2011

Brazil passed the right to information bill in 2011 which is loosely based on its BRIC partner India which

passed its RTI act in 2005.

In the first month itself it received a staggering 10400 requests according to the Federal Comptroller

General Nearly 70 percent of these (7,400) had already been answered, or around 7,400 requests,

according to the government. Which is a better response in comparison to India where even after seven

years of its existence still the applicant has to wait for months together for receiving the reply which is

due to the callous on the part of those government officials who think its a waste of their time to reply to

such articles?

Brazil an emerging economy has been grappled by problems of corruption and red tapes where drug lords still

form a potent force to the existence of democracy.

TRUTH COMMISION

SA notable fact is also that documents earlier maintained under the governments secrecy of document policy.

Such documents would be kept secret only for a period of only 25years which makes all documents open to

public after a maximum of at least 50years

In a country where human rights has been a serious problem the law has made a special provision

where All documents dealing with human rights violations, according to this special clause, must be

released immediately.

A major drawback is however, the bill still has some shortcomings. A key problem is that the bill fails to

provide for the establishment of an independent body to consider appeals against refusals to provide access to

information.

27


28/51

2) Chinas Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Open Government Information

The State Council of thePeople's Republic of China promulgated the "Regulations of the People's Republic

of China on Open Government Information which came into effect on May 1, 2008.

The act is to empower residents of china to have greater access to compensation claims from the government.

Being a closed nation, its basic purpose is to enable a more proactive role by people in the activity of the

government.

Various analysts feel its not more than an exercise towards self-revelation by the Chinese government.

The regulation is loosely based on the U.S.AS freedom of information act. However these regulations are not

entirely new for the fact that over 30 provincial and city-level governments throughout China as well as

central government agencies and departments have adopted OGI rules in the last several years," with

Guangzhou being the first to do so.

The highlight of this regulation is that government agencies at all levels have an affirmative obligation to

disclose certain information, generally within 20 business days," and "citizens, legal persons, and other

organizations (Requesting Parties) may request information and are entitled to receive a reply within 15

business days and no later than 30 working days .

The Regulations in separate article state the types of information that government agencies are to disclose at

the county level and above, at the municipal level, and at the township level. For example, in the first

category, county-level or above people's governments and their departments are to emphasize disclosure of

information regarding plans for national economic and social development; budgets and accounts; items

subject to administrative fees and the legal basis and standards therefore; matters subject to administrative

licensing; information on the approval and implementation of major construction projects; education, medical

care, social security, and the like; and information on environmental protection, public health, safe

production, and food, drug, and product quality. At the city and township level, among other types of

information emphasized for disclosure that on "requisition or land appropriation, household demolition and

resettlement,

28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Council_of_the_People's_Republic_of_Chinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_Chinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Council_of_the_People's_Republic_of_Chinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China


29/51

Case Study

1) HOW TO SELL TAJ

Have you recently heard any jokes about selling Taj Mahal to foreign tourists? No? Not lately?

That is because people dont joke about that nowadays. Reason: you can almost do it now. Sell the Taj, that

is. Heres how. First, call it a public private participation (PPP) initiative; next, put the Taj into a separate

corporate vehicle; third, sell a majority stake in it and tell the public to mind its own business. Who can

object, for it is a public-private initiative, where the public is upfront, and private comes next?

Though, an application can be filed under the RTI 2005 if the entity is in some way financed or in other way

subject to the act. Private companies and entities consider themselves above the RTI act and the law itself

The bright spot for an applicant is that an RTI can be filed towards the following institutions

Companies working under the

Public private partnership

Joint ventures projects (Mumbai metro one)

Private airport operator(Mumbai international airport private ltd)

Large or small cooperates funded heavily by public sector banks and FIIs

However all such entities try out every nook in the books to evade such queries and to divert them to the

garbage cans.

29


30/51

2) MUMBAI AIRPORT AUTHORITY LTD CAME UNDER RTI

Citizen activist Sanjay Shirodkar single-handedly took on Mumbai International Airport (MIAL) which

refused to provide information, saying that it cannot come under the RTI Act. On 30th May, Central

Information Commissioner Sushma Singh ordered that privately-managed airports come under the purview of

the RTI Act. Its an important decision that will impact all public-private partnerships that tend to be secretive

in their functioning

THE GROUND ON WHICH THE APPLICANT RAISED QUESTIONS were

Whether MIAL was established, or constituted, by an order of an appropriate government body.

Whether MIAL is a body controlled by the appropriate government body.

Whether MIAL is substantially financed either directly, or indirectly, by funds provided by the

appropriate government body.

While enjoying 2,000 acres of AAI land for a lease rent of Rs 100 per annum, and paying ridiculously low

Income tax and service tax of around Rs 3,000, GVK claims the freedom to act as if it is just another private

limited company working to maximize profits. It is running MIAL in collaboration with the 2 BOGUS

companies namely ACSA Global Ltd and Bid Services (Mauritius) Ltd which have shadowy links to

the companies that were evaluated by AAI and found worthy to be partners in the MIAL Consortium, namelyAirports Company South Africa and Bidvest of South Africa.

In June 2008, the Bombay High Court ruled that MIAL is an instrumentality of the state. But GVK still

refuses to adopt standards of transparent dealing that come with being an instrumentality of the state, and a

custodian of state properties. What is alarming is that the Indian government is quietly playing along with

GVK.

To shield GVK and the bogus companies, even public authorities such as AAI, the aviation ministry, the

finance ministry, the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA), the Planning Commission and other

government bodies that are keeping a distance and MIALs dealings are continually evading RTI queries. No

government agency wants to disclose anything. A consortium of banks, most of them in the public sector,

gave an infrastructure loan of Rs 4,200 crore to MIAL.

Whose money was it?

Yours and mine. But the details are being concealed by the banks. In a worryingly perverse order, Central

Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi opined that it was a matter of commercial confidence and

fiduciary relationship between the banks and the borrower, and there was no public interest in our knowing

about it.

30


31/51

ANALOG of the case is as follows:

On 1 January 2008: Sanjay Shirodkar files a complaint.

2 February 2008: Mumbai International Airport (MIAL) says it is not a public authority under the RTI Act.

17 January 2007: In another appeal filed by Delhi RTI activist Anil Heble before the CIC, Delhi, against the

AAI, Delhi International Airport (DIAL) declared as public authority by the CIC.

20 February 2008: Shirodkar files another complaint with the CIC.

11 June 2008: CIC issued an order stating that MIAL is a public authority under the RTI Act.

16 July 2008: Mr Shirodkar sends complaint to CIC stating that MIAL is not following CIC order. Instead,

MIAL files a case in the Delhi High Court.

22 November 2010: The CIC's decision of 11 June 2008 is set aside on the ground that "no opportunity

provided to MIAL to present its case". High court also directs CCI to restore Mr Shirodkar's appeal and hear

both sides.

30 March 2011: CIC gives an order stating that MIAL comes under the purview of the RTI Act and that

MIAL should appoint a public information officer within 30 days of receiving the order

MIAL, still determined to not provide information, filed yet another fresh petition before the Delhi High

Court. To avoid being held accountable as a state as per the Bombay High Court judgment, MIAL is now

dragging on this case in the Supreme Court.

In this way, MIAL, or rather GVK Group has built up a mass of 15 litigations before the Supreme Court

alone, causing confusion and maintaining the status quo.

31


32/51

3) Judges on information panel: Will they kill the RTI Act?

The Supreme Court (SC) judgment mandating serving or retired judges of SC and High Courts to be

appointed as information commissioners, has met with a mixed response from RTI activists. SC ruled thatinformation commissions at the Centre and states will comprise two members, one of whom will be a

judicial member, the other an expert.

Once implemented, the SC order will put an end to the current selection regime of information

commissioners, which, according to many activists, is opaque and arbitrary.

A study done by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) shows that less than 10 percent of

information commissioners have non-civil services background.

Advocates of transparency in the system have been complaining that having retired bureaucrats working asinformation watchdogs defeats the purpose of the RTI act. It is seen as a conflict of interest because the

person who has served the government for decades is expected to be biased towards it and self-regulate the

amount and nature of government-related information that should be revealed.

According to the order, the chief information commissioner at the Centre or state level shall only be a person

who is or has been a chief justice of the High Court or a judge of the Supreme Court.

The information commissioner, ruled the SC, shall be a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court.

Chief information commissioners at the Centre and states will be appointed in consultation with the chiefjustice of the Supreme Court of India and chief justices of High Courts respectively.

Information commissioners at both levels will have to be recruited from the people empanelled by the

department of personnel and training (for Centre) and the concerned Ministry (for states).

Our view:

The SC decision is a classic example of judicial overreach and was uncalled for.

The SC order has, in effect, amended the RTI Act when it should have just interpreted the Act. If one goes by

the latest SC judgment, effectively, all posts of chairpersons of information commissions will be reserved for

serving or retired judges of the Supreme Court or chief justices of High Courts. Under the RTI Act,

candidates from all fields of specialisation mentioned in the Act have an equal claim to this post provided

they meet the criteria. The SC recommendation amounts to amending the RTI Act through the judicial route

instead of merely interpreting its provisions.

32


33/51

Case study

RAMESH AGARWAL an r.t.i activist from the coal belt of chattisghar was shot dead on 8th July 2o12.

Mr agarwal through his N.G.O Jan Chetna Manch had filed an r.t.i on jindal steel accusing them of starting

production without obtaining clearance from the environmental ministry.

Post which a wide outcry followed which in turn resulted into him being shot by unknown assailants who 1st

warned him not to proceed with his campaign against jindal what followed was a scuffle at his cyber cafe

eventually resulting in him being shot

Chhattisgarh accounts for 16 per cent of Indias coal reserves and contributes to over 18 per cent of national

production. The deposits are concentrated in the northern part of the State, including Raigarh where rapid

industrialisation has led to violent clashes between thermal power companies and villagers living above rich

coal seams. Agrawal and his NGO organised village-level opposition to the projects and frequently accused

several companies, particularly JSPL, of violating environmental norms and procedures. In April this year, the

National Green Tribunal (NGT) cancelled environmental clearance granted for a four-million-tonne per annum

coalmine operated by JSPL, after Mr. Agrawal and his associates claimed that the mandatory public hearing

held to clear the project did not follow accepted procedures. In its order, the NGT described the hearing as a

classic example of violation of the rules and the principles of natural justice to its brim. In June last year, Mr.

Agrawal was imprisoned for two months for allegedly inciting a mob at a public hearing organised to grant

clearance for a 2,400-MW thermal power plant proposed by Jindal Power Ltd.

33


34/51

Has really the RTI act made life of the various stake holders better?

Until 2005, an ordinary citizen/people had no access to information held by a public authority. Even in

matters and services such as food for work, wage employment, basic education and health care,old age pension

and food security for poor,it was not easy to seek the details of decision making process that affected or harmed

him.Without access to relevant ort necessary information, it was not possible for a common man to participate

in a meaningful debate on political and economic options or choices available to him for fulfilling socio-

economic needs.

1) Greater Transparency

Every public authority is required to maintain all its records in an organized manner for the use of the

public under this act. The public authorities are therefore expected to make disclosures through publication of

relevant documents, including web-based dissemination of information. The public authorities are also required

to provide as muchinformation suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of

communication, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to

obtain information.

Thus, there is greater transparency than ever before in the working of the public bodies. In a large number of

cases, the Commission has ordered for providing the details of the decision-making processes, which include

file noting, cabinet papers, records of recruitment, selection and promotion of staff, documents pertaining to

tender processes and procurement procedure, the lists of beneficiaries of the Governments subsidized schemes,

such as, food grains supplied through ration shops, water and electricity, domestic gas, educational and health

facilities, shelter for poor, muster rolls under employment guarantee schemes, health insurance scheme for

poor, old age pension, food security for destitute, etc. The disclosure of such information has resulted in

checking corrupt practices. The disclosure of information relating to use of funds allocated to poverty

alleviation schemes, MLA/MP local area funds, details of performance of elected leaders, has led to advocacy

in the election campaign to highlight the roles of political leaders in fulfilling their obligations. The media and

civil society have raised development issues, based on facts about the use of funds as well as the best practices

in formulation and implementation of schemes for poor.

2) Promotion of Citizen-Government Partnerships

The RTI Act provides a framework for promotion citizen-government partnership in designing and

implementation of development programmes for improving quality of life, which leads to increase in peoplesoptions for higher earnings, better education and health care, a cleaner environment and a richer cultural life.

34


35/51

The principle of partnership is derived from the fact that people are not only the ultimate beneficiaries of

development, but also the agents of change. The stakeholders participation leads to better projects and more

dynamic development. Under the RTI regime, citizens participation has been promoted through:

(a) access to information and involvement of affected groups/communities in design and implementation of

projects

(b) Empowerment of local government bodies at village level through the involvement and cooperation with

NGOs/self help groups.

The disclosure of information has enabled the beneficiaries, mainly through NGOs, to assume a central role in

design and execution of projects. RTI has instilled a wider sense of ownership in the development activities.

Besides, access to information has enabled the people to participate in economic and political processes

through a dialogue between people and the government officials or public campaign on public policies. For

instance, information obtained under RTI, in respect of utilization of funds allocated under various welfare

schemes, have been used by NGOs and media to create awareness among the masses about the contributions of

the political leaders, which have had desirable impact on the outcome of democratic process. Therefore, almost

all the welfare projects, particularly at the States and Village levels, are being designed and developed in

cooperation and support with the NGOs or affected persons, with a view to raising the satisfaction level of

people. A high degree of participation by the people in realizing the assured entitlements is unprecedented in

the economic history of India. Also, rural to urban migration is, for the first time, showing the sign of

deceleration.

3. Greater Accountability

The RTI provides people with the mechanism to access information, which they can use to hold the government

to account or to seek explanation as to why decisions have been taken, by whom and with what outcomes. In

addition, every public authority is required to provide reasons for its administrative decisions therefore there is

no scope for any wrong decision. It was not possible for an ordinary person to seek the details of a decision of

government, which was found most often, as ineffective in terms of its outcome. It was, therefore, not possible

to hold a free and frank discussion on issues of common concern of people or to fix the responsibility for any

action. The RTI act has, in effect, created conducive or better conditions for everyone to have a better

understanding of how the government works or how a particular decision was taken. Such a chance given to

people empowers them to make appropriate choice of leadership and the policies that affect

them. This has begun to happen on delivery of socio economic services, particularly for the poor people.

For example, being fully aware that the records pertaining to the decision making processes, including file

notings, are required to be put in public domain, the concerned officials at all levels objectively record the

reasons for the observations made by them. And, due care is taken to formulate a professionally sound policy

that meets peoples expectations. Attempts are also made to effectively implement the programmes as therelevant details are proactively disclosed. In effect, thus, the quality of decision making and delivery of services

35


36/51

have duly improved. Also, due to effective implementation of the flagship programmes for poverty alleviation,

and infrastructure development, the mismatch between the planned targets and actual realization has, of late,

been minimized, which has enabled the people to build their strengths and abilities to realize their

socioeconomic objectives. Even before the RTI was passed and implemented, poverty alleviation and

empowerment programmes were implemented but the achievements were always below the general

expectations, mainly because of the absence of the transparency and accountability norms. Lack of legal right to

know and to scrutinize the public action or to question the authority contributed to inefficiency and corruption

resulting in lower outcomes of public activities. With empowered citizens and free flow of information, there is

significant quantitative and qualitative improvement in the delivery of services. For instance, disclosure of

information relating to:

i) attendance of staff in schools has helped in checking teachers absenteeism and students drop out;

ii) attendance of doctors and nurses at primary health centres has led to improvement in health care facilities in

rural areas;

iii) the details of supplies and distribution of food grains through ration shops has assured the reach of

entitlements to the beneficiaries;

iv) the supply and demand for petroleum products, such as, domestic gas has reduced black marketing;

v) muster rolls and beneficiary of employment guarantee schemes has exposed corruption and ensured effective

delivery of services to the poor who are entitled for wage employment on demand for at least 100 days in a year

@ Rs.60 80 per day, which means additional income of Rs.6000 8000 per year; and

vi) allotment of retail outlets (petrol pumps) and agencies for distribution of LPG gs, including the registered

beneficiaries has ensured fair play and objective decisions, as reflected from substantial reduction in litigation

cases in the matter.

The disclosure of the list of beneficiaries for income support like wage employment and subsidized food

grains and subsidized services like domestic gas has helped in weeding out the fictitious names, resulting in

better targeting of services to the poor and also in reduction in corruption due to checks on black -marketing of

subsidized goods and services. As a result of increased Governments accountability in delivery of services,

rural to urban migration has, of late, decelerated, as widely reported in the media. This is also corroborated by

the findings of a national level survey conducted by the Transparency International and the Centre for Media

Studies. The survey has revealed that in the opinions of 40 per cent of respondents (all below the poverty line),

corruption and mal-practices in implementation of poverty alleviation programmes have declined due to RTI

induced accountability of the Government and its functionaries at various levels. RTI route has generally been

followed by a large number of people for resolving disputes between the parties on the issues pertaining to the

decisions on administrative, business and commercial matters. Disclosure of information regarding the process

of decision making or the grounds for action taken has helped resolve disputes on such issues as claim of

refund of taxes paid by the individuals/companies, settlement of insurance claims, payment of dues ofcontractors, process of sanction and recovery of loans, etc. Since a reply is to be given within thirty days,

36


37/51

disputes have been resolved faster than never before in the Indias history. A large number of grievances

pertaining to service

matters, mainly promotion and pension benefits have also been redressed due to openness and promptness in

taking action on requests made under the RTI. As a result, filing of appeals in the Courts has substantially

declined, as reported, for instance, by the Oil Marketing Companies, which grant dealerships for distribution of

petroleum products through retail outlets and

domestic gas agencies. The Courts have also advised the petitioners to obtain information under the RTI before

filing the cases before the Courts. It thus shows a strong and positive impact of RTI on transparency and

accountability of the Government.

4. Reduction in Corruption

The culture of secrecy, as known, encourages the government officials to indulge in corrupt practices, which

result in lower investments due to misuse of power and diversion of funds for private purposes. As a result, the

governments social spending yields no worthwhile benefits, because, for instance, the teachers do not teach,

doctors and nurses do not attend health centres, ration card holders do not receive subsidized food grains and,

thus, livelihood support is denied, and the promised jobs are not provided to the poor, who are assured of

income support. In the process, it perpetuates poverty and harms the poor. It creates an environment of distrust

between the people and the government, which impinge upon the development and jeopardize democratic

governance. Under the RTI regime, there is unprecedented transparency in the working of public departments.

There is thus better understanding of the decision making process and greater accountability of government.

This has led to reduction in corruption in the country as evident from the following:

i) The Transparency International (TI) has reported that perceived corruption in India has declined, due mainly

to the implementation of the RTI Act. This is evident from corruption reduction score of 3.4 (out of 10) in

2008, after an initial rise of 3.5 in 2007, compared to 2.99 in 2006, which indicate a decline in corruption to the

extent of 15%.

ii) The TI-CMS has recently accomplished an all India survey study of the poor below the poverty line. The

views of the poor have been elicited in respect of all the flagship programmes that have been implemented for

alleviation of poverty. At least 40 per cent of the respondents have reported that corruption has declined.

iii) It has also been observed that wherever NGOs are actively involved in the development activities, the

perceived corruption is abysmally low.

5. RTI and its Impact on Major Indicators of Development

The challenge of development is to improve the quality of life, which calls for increasing peoples options for

higher earnings, better education and health care, a cleaner environment and a richer cultural life.

The record of long-term performance show that while there has been steady progress in improvement of themajor indicators of development, the achievements fall far short of our expectations. At least, one third of our

37


38/51

people suffer from all forms of deprivations, such as, inadequate livelihood support, lack of basis education and

health care.

Of the various factors attributable to slow progress, lack of effective mechanisms for sharing information and

knowledge and peoples participation in governance of development projects, is chiefly responsible. Since

peoples participation in decision making process is essence of democracy, they have the right to access

nformation held by the public bodies. In this backdrop, rights-based approach to development has proved to be

very effective in realizing socio-economic goals, as this approach provides legal guarantee for realizing

entitlements and promoting empowerment of people. And, the implementation of RTI provides a framework for

promoting Citizen-Government participation in development process. People can access information held by

the Government to develop an understanding as to how they are affected or how can they benefit from the

programmes? While the Government has obligations to function in an open and transparent manner, people

have right to observe and scrutinize decision making process, which forms the basis for seeking accountability

of the Government. Of late, there has been massive use of right to know by the citizens,including the poor, who

have sought to empower themselves with the new ideas, information and knowledge for changing the way they

live in. The issue therefore is whether the use of RTI has helped in improving accountability of Government,

resulting in realization of entitlements of poor, through effective delivery of services

6.Poverty Alleviation

RTI is used as a tool for facilitating effective delivery of socio-economic services. RTI empowers people to

seek details about their entitlements and, accordingly, to take informed decisions in all matters affecting them

so as to secure equity and justice. Recognizing the significance of right to know for ensuring free flow of

information and good governance, the RTI Act exempts the poor from payment of fees of Rs.10/- for seeking

information. And, the information is to be furnished within the stipulated period of thirty days, failing which

penalty may be imposed. An estimate reveals that at least 20 per cent of the information seekers are those who

belong to BPL category. In rural areas, this share is as high as 37% of the total applicants. They have, in

general, sought to know the details of services assured to them and the reasons as to why the services meant for

them are not reaching them. In the RTI regime, the poor persons armed with information through the exercise

of right to know, are getting increasingly involved in designing and implementation of poverty alleviation

programmes, as discussed below.

7. Guarantee of Income and Food Security

The Governments the Centre and States have launched from time to time a number of schemes for

providing wage employment to the poor, the benefits of which have hardly reached them due to ineffective

implementation of programmes, including rampant corruption. In the absence of right to information, it was not

possible to create conditions for accountability of public servants or authorities, which resulted in both

perpetuation of poverty and unproductive use of resources that were allocated for eradication of poverty. In this

38


39/51

backdrop, the adoption of rights-based approach is significant to wee out corruption and to guarantee the reach

of entitlements of poor persons. Accordingly, almost all the poverty alleviation programmes are designed such

that a citizen can observe and scrutinize the public activities with a view to providing critical feedback for

shaping the policies and programmes that would assure optimum gains to society, particularly the poor. In this

context, a mention may be made of the following schemes:

i) Implementation of NREGA: With a view to providing work opportunity on demand for at least 100 days in

a year and to secure livelihood of people in rural areas, NREGA has been implemented. The right to work has

thus been legally guaranteed and the manner in which entitlement for employment is to be claimed has been

clearly articulated. Rural poor have been effectively participating in the programme for not only just to secure

income security but also to build rural infrastructure, which is critical for raising productivity in the future.

In effect, annual income of a rural job card holder has thus risen by Rs.6,000 - 8000 (100 days x Rs.60 80 per

day wages), which is in addition to other incomes. The development of rural infrastructure under the scheme

would surely enhance productivity of various activities and augment further opportunities for employment and

income. In view of the above gains, the rural community in cooperation with the Panchayats (Village Councils)

has been effectively participating in changing the landscape of poverty scenario in the country. The outcome is

encouraging as the affected persons are able to get their grievances redressed under the provisions of the RTI

Act. Taking advantage of the transparency norms, which are built in both the NREGA, and the right to

information, people have sought to know the details of schemes and its relevance to the rural community,

utilization of funds, payment of wages to the target beneficiaries, etc. The disclosure of relevant details, such as

muster rolls, has helped in containing corruption, ensuring the reach of benefits to the target groups and

identification of officials responsible for creating obstruction in effective implementation of programmes. The

RTI has thus proved very effective in providing grounds for initiating remedial actions with a view to realizing

the objectives of public policies. For urban poor, Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) has

been launched to provide basic services, namely, water supply and sanitation, transport, education, health care,

etc. Through RTI, citizens ensure effective delivery of services in a time bound manner, which has desirable

impact on poverty reduction and quality of life in urban areas.

ii) Mid-Day Meals to School Children: As a measure of food security, all the school children are provided

with mid-day meals in schools, which not only helps in reducing nutritional deficiency among the poverty

stricken children but also enhances their learning attainments due to adequate intake of balanced diets. All the

stakeholders, mainly the students, teachers and parents, are able to observe and monitor the service delivery

system. Since there has to be almost total openness in operationalisation of the scheme, people have access to

relevant information, which they utilize for improving effectiveness of the scheme. This, in turn, assists in

reducing both food poverty as well as dropouts, which have been rampant among the children from poor

families. In effect, the scheme improves physical health and learning abilities of children.

iii) Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS): One of the components of this scheme is to providenutritional support to children from poor families. The use of RTI by the target group, including the NGOs, has

39


40/51

ensured effective implementation of the scheme to the advantage of the poor children.

iv) Grant of Food Security and Pension for the Poor Senior Citizens:

With a view to providing income and human security to the poor and destitute, financial assistance to families

with low means of subsistence is provided to all poor persons, above 60 years. The grant of pension of Rs.500/-

per month has been universalized. Moreover, the destitute are entitled for 10 Kgs of food grains per month free

of cost. Those who could not claim for their entitlements of pensions or free food grains, for different reasons,

are able to do so through the use of RTI. There are umpteen numbers of instances which demonstrate that the

people are accessing the above benefits that have been assured by the Government. The issue of livelihood

being important as it affects life and liberty of people, information is furnished within 48 hrs as per the

provisions of the Act. Since these schemes, namely, ICDS, mid-day meals, NREGS and old age pension cover

the entire target population, and the Government is committed to implement these schemes and is actually

doing so, there is no reason why the food poverty cannot be annihilated over night. The RTI encourages

everyone to ask the Government to explain as to why assured benefits are not reaching them. And, by asking

this, grievances are redressed under the auspices of the Information Commission.

8. Delivery of Services under Subsidized Schemes

The Governments have launched a number of schemes which make essential services available to the poor at

low rates. Under the schemes, such items as food grains, kerosene, sugar, etc, are provided to the poor in order

to alleviate costs burden on them. Besides, subsidy is provided for housing, education and health services.

i) Public Distribution System (PDS): The implementation of schemes like Public Distribution System (PDS)

has, till recently, been adversely affected by unacceptably poor quality of governance at all levels of execution

of the scheme, resulting in leakages and siphoning of materials to non-poor. The issue of how to improve the

quality of governance at all levels of public administration to curb leakages and plug loop holes has never been

effectively addressed. However, under the RTI regime, which seeks transparency and accountability of public

bodies, the quality of governance has begun to improve, as discussed above in this paper. As a result, the

services meant for the poor are reaching them since the beneficiaries are using RTI to seek such details as the

stock of supplies and distribution, rate lists, list of beneficiaries - the disclosure of which ensures weeding out

of fictitious names. It has thus been possible to curb corruption and plug lo

Documents

Law Group 6 - RTI