Dear Friends ,
One of the topics in Paper 1 of Public administration is accountability and control - in that sub topic is RTI Act .Supposed to be a revolutionary act but finding difficulty in getting implemented sincerely. The article below gives very comprehensive information about RTI and can act as single source of information.
Regards
GMStudyCenter
(Source : http://secularcitizen.blogspot.com/search/label/Right%20to%20Information )
Right to Information viz. RTI is a part of fundamental rights under Article
19(1) of the Constitution, which says that every citizen has freedom of speech
and expression. The people cannot express themselves unless they know what’s
happening in the systems that govern them. Every citizen, being the tax payee
has the authority as the masters in a democratic system to know how the
government bodies and public authorities, meant to serve them, are
functioning.
But it is quite unfortunate that the Government
authorities are still hesitant to part with the information under their control.
It is in this context that the ‘Right to Information Act’
becomes very significant. Right to Information Act, 2005 is a public drafted
legislation to set out a mechanism to avail information in the hands of Public
authorities and Government Officials. It does not confer any new right, but
simply lays down the procedures on how to apply for information under the
control of public authorities, and how to avail it.
The preamble
of Right to Information Act, 2005 says - “Democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and
also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the governed”. As sounded by its preamble, the Act envisages a
corruption-free and transparent governance and polity. The Act covers not only
the Executive, but the judiciary and the legislature also. It extends to the
entire gamut of central, state and local government systems including those
bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by government and also those
Non-government organizations substantially financed, directly or indirectly by
funds provided by government. Information relating to any private body that can
be accessed by a public authority also comes under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005.
The RTI Act defines “Information” as any material in any form,
including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases,
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, and
data material held in any electronic form. It is interesting to learn that
“Right to Information” also covers
Inspection of work, documents,
records; taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
and taking certified samples of material. It implies that any citizen can
exercise his right to invigilate the transparency and accountability of
governance or even insist that a particular civil work be performed in his
presence. Any citizen can avail a copy of every bill settled from funds
controlled by any of the public authorities and even the statement of accounts
of every activity/project/event funded or organized by the Public Authority.
Public authority is also obliged to provide reasons for its administrative or
quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons, and publish all relevant facts
while formulating important decisions affecting the public. Another interesting
aspect of RTI Act is that there is “Penalty for forfeiture of
information”.
Section 4(2) of the Act says that “it shall be the
constant endeavor of every public authority to provide as much information suo
moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication,
including internet, so that the public shall have minimum resort to the use of
this Act to obtain information”. So the dream is the change of mindset from
maintenance of Official Information in Secret to Maximum Voluntary disclosure of
information.
Having told the philosophy of Right to Information,
it is imperative that the ways and means of availing the information shall be
set. So the RTI Act directs that ‘ Every Public Authority shall designate as
many Public Information Officers (PIO) in all the administrative units or
Offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons
requesting information”. PIO is also required to help any person making the
request orally to reduce the same in writing. The Act further stipulates that
“every public authority shall designate an Officer at each sub-divisional or
other sub-district level as Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) to
receive the applications for information or appeals under this RTI Act for
forwarding the same forthwith to the respective PIO or 1st Appellate Authority
or Information Commission. The Burden of proving that PIO/APIO has acted
reasonably and diligently in discharge of his functions or obligations under RTI
Act will be on the respective PIO/APIO.
PIO may seek assistance
of any other Officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper
discharge of his or her duties. Section 5(5) of RTI Act says that such Officer
will be deemed as PIO for the purposes of providing the information requested.
All the Burden including liability for Penalty on defiance of information will
stand transferred to the Deemed PIO, if PIO transfers the request to such
Officer with a note indicating the same
The Request for information has
to be submitted to PIO or APIO in writing or through electronic means in
English, Hindi or Official language of the area with a nominal Fee of Rs. 10/-.
(There is no fee for persons Below Poverty Line). PIO can demand additional sum
of Rs. 2 for each page created or copied for giving it as information to the
requestor or Rs. 50/- per diskette/floppy if the same is given in electronic
form. Incase if Inspection of work is requested no fee is chargeable for the
first hour, but Rs. 5/- each for every subsequent hours.
The Act
mandates that the PIO shall provide the requested information as expeditiously
as possible, but in no way later than 30 days. However the public authorities
can take 5 days more to part with the information sought, if such request is
made through APIO. But in any case where the requested information involves the
question of “life or liberty”, such information should be given within 48
hours.
Section 6(2) of RTI Act makes it clear that a person
requesting information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting
the information or any other personal details. However this freedom implies that
the citizens shall show a greater sense of responsibility on the part of the use
of information in the media and elsewhere. (Dissemination shall be in Public
Interest.). In view of the national security, Intelligence and Security
Organisations such as IB, RAW of Cabinet Secretariat, BSF, SPG, CISF, DRDO,
Special Branch CID of Andaman & Nicobar, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, Narcotics Control Bureau etc. have been exempted from stringent
provisions of the RTI Act. But it is very interesting to note that the
information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights
violations are not exempt from disclosure even in the case of those
organizations. That conveys the very intention of this
Legislation.
Now comes the real question - What is the remedy if
the requested information is denied? RTI Act establishes an Independent and
Non-judicial appellate mechanism in which a body called “Information Commission”
(Central Information Commission and State information Commissions) has been set
as the apex body. Further Section 23 of the Act asserts that ‘No court shall
entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order
made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than
by way of an appeal under this Act’. But this provision cannot be interpreted as
a complete bar on jurisdiction of courts, since the options of Writ petitions
and Special Leave petitions always subsists. Information Commission also would
entertain the complaints from any one who is aggrieved on account of any matter
relating to obtaining information under this law including the cases where the
public authority refused to accept the RTI Request.
In order to
give an opportunity for the ‘public authority’ to review its on decision as to
the denial of Information requested from PIO, the Act requisitions that an
Officer senior in rank to PIO be appointed as the First Appellate Authority, to
whom the aggrieved citizen can appeal within thirty days of expiry of time
limits within which he/she should have received the information requested. The
First Appellate Authority (AA) shall ordinarily dispose of the appeal within
thirty days or latest by the forty-fifth day with reasons for availing such
prolonged period. An appeal to the respective Central or State Information
Commission may be made within a period of 90 days from the date of decision of
the Appellate Authority or from the date of expiry of time limit for the
disposal of the first appeal made before the first Appellate
Authority.
Information Commission may, at the time of deciding
any complaint or appeal, impose upon PIO, a fine of Rs. 250 per day, up to a
maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, if he/she has without any reasonable ground: refused to
accept an application for information; or delayed furnishing of information; or
malafidely denied information; or knowingly given incomplete, incorrect, or
misleading information; or destroyed information that has been requested; or
obstructed furnishing of information in any manner. So the Act has teeth; it can
not only bark but bite also. But of course the PIO will be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on
him.
The RTI Act extends its arm further to declare that if PIO
persistently violates his obligations under RTI Act, Information Commission
shall recommend for disciplinary action against such PIO under the service rules
applicable to him.
Though the Right to Information Act moots complete
transparency in the governmental system, it is also equally important that the
strategic information pertaining to the State and any personal information
devoid of larger public interest be exempted from disclosure. Accordingly
Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act bars the disclosure of the following
information.
a) Information, disclosure of 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;
b) 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;
c)
Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of
Parliament or the State Legislature;
d) Information including
commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of
which would harm the competitive position of a third party, (unless larger
public interest warrants the disclosure of such information);
e)
Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, (unless the
larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information);
f) Information received in confidence from foreign
Government;
g) Information, the disclosure of which would
endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of
information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security
purposes;
h) Information which would impede the process of
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
i)
Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers,
Secretaries and other officers. (However, after the decision is taken and the
matter is complete or over, the decision, the reasons thereof and the material
leading to the decision shall be made public);
j) Information
which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless larger public
interest demands its disclosure
Further, Section 9 of the Act
insists that any information that infringes the copyright of any person other
than the State should not be disclosed. While Section 8 and Section 9 prevents
the disclosure of the kind of information mentioned above, the Act maintains
vide
Section 10(1) that ‘access may be provided to that part of the
record, which is not exempted from disclosure, and which can reasonably be
severed from any part of that contains the ‘exempt
information’
You would also be delighted to learn about an
important decision of the Full Bench of Central Information Commission (Decision
dated 23rd April 2007), which declared that there is “No fiduciary relationship”
in respect of “Evaluated Answer Sheets”, while maintaining accepting that there
existed “Fiduciary Relationship” between a) Lawyer and Client; b) Doctor and
Patient; c) Bank and Customer; d) Trustee and Beneficiary; e) Organisation and
Reporting Officer in respect of CR of an Employee etc. Therefore the Information
Commission directed that the answer sheets should ordinarily be disclosed in all
circumstances, but subject to the scrutiny under S. 8 (1) and Section 9 of RTI
Act. The Commission stated further that the evaluated answer sheets could be
disclosed withholding the name of the Examiner, in view of the fact that the
disclosure of identity of the examiners might pose a danger to the life and
safety of the Examiner. The decision also implies that marks given by each of
the Interview board members are givable without revealing their
identity.
So RTI Act, 2005 is the most pretty and powerful legislation
that the democratic India gifted to its citizens. Its Supremacy is being
reiterated in Section 22 of the Act, which states that ‘ The Provisions of RTI
Act will be having the overriding effect on any contradicting provisions in
Official Secret Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or any
other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this
Act”
Let me add a few sagas of successful RTI ventures as an
anecdote here. The first story is from a north Indian village. Mazloom Nadaf, a
70-year old rickshaw puller had no scope for his long-awaited dream until he
found light in RTI. The story reads as follows - Nadaf did not get any response
for the first five years on his application on Indira Awas Yojana – India’s
National housing Scheme. Five years later, authorities demanded Rs. 5000/- from
him to process the application. But he refused to give the money and, instead
approached the legal aid centre of an NGO working in Madhubani district and
sought their assistance in drafting and filing an RTI application. In his RTI
request, Mazloom asked for the daily progress report made on his application to
avail of the Indira Awas Yojana. The application was filed with the Circle
Officer for his block who forwarded the same to the Block Development Officer
(BDO). The BDO on receiving the RTI application called Mazloom and treated him
like a VIP and with a lot of respect handed over a Cheque of Rs. 15,000 (first
installment payment) under the Indira Awas Yojana. He was also promised that he
would get the subsequent installments in time.
Right to
Information Act was also effectively used by residents of a village in
Rajasthan’s Bikaner district to put an end to the practice of selling grains
from ration shops in the black market. Mr. Revat Ram, Secretary, Jagruk Yuvak
Manch of the areas was Instrumental in this achievement. Revat Ram and his
friends used the RTI Act to get all records of their ration shop in Himmatsar
village and exposed how grains meant for the poor were being black-marketed at a
ration shop in Bikaner. After the move, the villagers got the dealer removed.
Besides losing dealership, the ration shopkeeper was also forced to pay poor
families in the village over Rupees Four Lakhs, the cash equivalent of the
grains he had sold illegally.
“They threatened us and also
offered money. But we refused, because we wanted to ensure that people in our
village get the grains they deserve from the government. And we did not get
scared in fighting for the rights of our people” – Says Mr.
Revat
The message of RTI Act is very clear – Uproot corruption
and make the governmental system totally transparent and accountable to the
people. So Government Employee is no longer a Government Servant. He/She has to
transform to a Public Servant in Letter and Spirit.
To End with,
I wish to quote the father of our nation
- “The real Swaraj will come not
by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by
all to resist authority when abused “
Is
it that the Independent India needed 58 years to realize what Mahatmaji told?
Posts
