Urgent Amendments Needed to the Rti Act-081208

8/14/2019 Urgent Amendments Needed to the Rti Act-081208

1/6

URGENT AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO THE RTI ACT, 2005

The RTI Act, 2005 is one of the best legislations, post independence. But it is not withoutsome shortcomings. But these shortcomings are visibly becoming fatal for the Act due to

attitude problems of the authorities who have thrived on the colonial system of

governance that had prevailed so far. Under the circumstances the following amendmentsare urgently required to make this Act deliver.

1. Sub-sec 2(e). The definition ofCompetent Authority should be amended to read as:the President of India only.

Reasons:

1.1. There is NO need for so many competent authorities for interpreting and modifying

the rules under this simple, straightforward Act.

1.2. This sub section, read in conjunction with sub sec 2(g) and Sec 28, adversely affectsthe uniform implementation of the Act. In particular, it gives a long rope toincompetent competent authorities to subvert the Act itself.

The instance of the Delhi High Court is relevant here. The application fees had been

increased from Rs 10/- to Rs 500/-, the cost of a page of information has been increased

from Rs 2/- to Rs 5/- and appeal fee has been increased from Rs 0/- to Rs 50/-! While

the cost of Rs 2/- per page of information is high considering that the cost ofphotostating an A4 size page is only Re 0.50, including the profit made by commercial

photostating establishments, the introduction of an appeal fee is ridiculous considering

that the 1st appeal is only an opportunity granted to the public authority to correct anymistakes of its own PIO. Unfortunately these two unfair decisions seem to be the norm

with our so called courts of justice.

2. Sub-sec 2(g). The definition ofprescribed should be amended to read as:

prescribed means prescribed by the rules made under this Act by the CentralGovernment (only).

Reasons: Same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

3. Sec 4. There should be NO fees or cost for citizens or citizen groups to inspect thedocuments required to be disclosed proactively by the public authorities. And the citizens

or citizen groups should be afforded the opportunity to inspect these with notice of a

maximum period of three days, including holidays if any.

Reasons: This is in consonance with the spirit of the Act. It will be grossly unfair if

citizens should be made to pay for information that should have been communicated tohim by the pubic authority proactively to ensure transparency in the functioning of the

public authority.


2/6

4. Sec 5(2). The Section should be re-stated as:

Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority at sub-

divisional level or other sub-district level shall designate an officer, within one hundred

days of the enactment of this Act, as an Assistant Public Information Officer to receive

the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the sameforthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information

Officer or senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central

Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be:

Provided that where an application for information or appeal is given to an AssistantPublic Information Officer a period of five days shall be added in computing the period

for response specified under sub-section (1) of section 7.

Reason: The present statement of the Section has created room for an interpretation tht

is impossible to execute where by all public authorities have to appoint an APIO at all

sub-divisions/sub-districts. Such an interpretation will necessitate a village office inKerala to designate an APIO at every sub-division/sub-district of Delhi also and vice-

versa. This obviously is an impossible proposition. Logically this interpretation shouldNOT be acceptable to anybody too, but unfortunately even the information

commissioners interpret it thus to deny the rights of citizens under this Act. To avoid

such dubious interpretations it is necessary to redraft the clause as given above to ensure

that all public authorities at sub division/sub-district level appoint an APIO for thepurpose mentioned there in. Also kindly note that there is just an APIO and NOdistinction is made as Central or State APIO because given the present structure of

organizations it is necessary to have every APIO accept applications, fees, cost andappeals to any public authority including the information commissions to ensure that the

objectives of the Act are realized with mass public participation.

5. Sec 6(3). The proviso to be amended as follows:

Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be madeas soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of

the application. And it would be deemed to have been received by the addresseewithin 5 days unless the date of posting and receipt are clearly indicated in the

relevant documents and proof of such dates are preserved by the public

authority and produced on demand.

Reason: The information commissioners are not seen to take cognizance of the delayswithin the public authorities resulting in public authorities fudging the dates with

impunity and getting away with it with impunity..For example, sending the information

after 40 days of receipt of application after back dating the letter by 15 days! All the datesmust figure in all communications. That is the PIO should as a matter of routine mention

the date of posting of the application by the applicant and its receipt by his office, as

indicated by the postal cancellation marks, in his response to the applicant. These dates


3/6

and similar dates should be mentioned by the applicant/appellant and appellate authorities

also including the information commissioners.

6. Sub Sec 12(3)(iii) may be amended as the Registrar General of the Supreme Court

Reason: A union cabinet minister should not be expected to act independently in acommittee headed by the Prime Minister. In any case a union cabinet minister to be

nominated by the PM in a committee to be headed by the PM is just making a farce of the

process of objective participation. This is an ideal case where the judiciary can beeffectively co-opted to make appointments in a quasi-judiciary body.

7. Sub Sec 12(5) may be amended as: The Chief Information Commissioner and

Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wideknowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management,

journalism, mass media or administration other than government administration.

(Please note that and governance has been deleted!)

Reason: It is seen that narrow loyalties are preventing the Information Commissioners,

especially the Chief Information Commissioners who invariably are former bureaucrats,from imposing penalties mandated under the Act leading to the subversion of the Act by

those tasked and empowered to enforce it. Not so long back Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, when

he was the President of India, asked why is it that almost all the undertrials are from the

marginalised sections of the society. The enforcement of the RTI Act also seems to beheaded towards such unethical and questionable ends.

8. Sec 13(5)(a) and (b) to be amended as

The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Comissioners shall be the

same as that of a munsif in a civil court.

Reason: The munsif in a court deals with a plethora of laws and does a more

cumbersome job. Compared to that the job of information commissioners is childs play.

9. Sec 14(1) and (2) should be deleted.

Reason: It conflicts with Sec 14(3). Sec 14(3) is simple and self-explanatory.

10. Sub Sec 14(3)(f) may be introduced as: has been evaluated average or below in

performance by an Information Commissioners Performance Evaluation Committee.

Reason: There has to be quantifiable parameters for evaluating the performance of the

Information Commissioners and evaluation based on these parameters has to be done bya duly constituted independent committee/council. There is need for only one such

committee/council at the national level that will evaluate the performance of the state

information commissioners also.


4/6

11. Sub Sec 15(5) may be amended as: 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 other than governmentadministration. (Please note that and governance has been deleted!)

Reason: Same as given at para 7 above.

12. Sec 16(3)(5). To be amended as

The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Comissioners shall be the

same as that of a munsif in a civil court.

Reason: The munsif in a court deals with a plethora of laws and does a more

cumbersome job. Compared to that the job of information commissioners is childs play.

13. Sec 17(1) and (2) should be deleted.

Reason: It conflicts with Sec 17(3). Sec 17(3) is simple and self explanatory.

14. Sub Sec 17(3)(f) may be introduced as: has been evaluated average or below in

performance by an Information Commissioners Performance Evaluation Committee.

Reason: Same as given at para 10 above.

15. Sub Sec 19(6) may be amended as: An appeal under sub secs (1), (2) or (3) shall be

disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period

not exceeding a total of forty five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be,for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Reason: At present, the disposal of appeals by the Information Commissioners is totallylackadaisical. It almost seems that retired bureaucrats with political clouts are having a

picnic at the cost of the exchequer. In one instance, the complete Kerala State Information

Commission had come to a district headquarters and conducted a camp sitting to consider

just 5 cases, in about one hour, when a good 29 cases from the same district were pendingwith the Commission! Also during the months of Mar, Apr and May 2007 the KSIC with 4

members had only disposed of 12, 18 and 9 complaints/appeals respectively!

16. Sec 20(1) and 20(2) may be read as 20(2) and 20(3) and 20(1) may be introduced as

follows:

20(1). On receipt of a complaint or appeal Sec 19, the Central Information Commission

or State Information Commission shall give an opportunity of being heard to the

Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer and their


5/6

respective appellate authorities to ascertain reasons if any for not imposing the penalty

mandated under this Sec.

Reason: The Information Commissioners are provided with all the documents-application,

reply by the PIO, 1st appeal and reply by the AA- pertaining to the case and they can

certainly ascertain from those documents if the information sought is disclosable and also ifthe period of 30 days had expired or not. The only thing to be ascertained from the PIO/AA

is whether there were any valid reasons for denying the information or the delay in

providing the information. The orders of the Commission should include the decision onpenalty also to ensure that the applicant is assured that the law has been enforced in its true

spirit.

17. Sec 20(1) (to be read as Sec 20(2) after introducing the above amendment) should beamended as follows:

Old 20 (1) and new 20(2). Where the Central Information Commission or the State

Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint orappeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public

Information Officerand their appellate authorities, as the case may be, has, withoutany reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not

furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or

malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete

or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of therequest 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 exceedtwenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public InformationOfficerand their appellate authorities, 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

and their appellate authorities, as the case may be.

Reason: At present the appellate authorities while being in the chain of processing the

application and have been given 30 days to consider the 1st appeal, are not penalized for

any failure on their part to discharge their responsibilities diligently. This is totally unfair.

18. Sec 20(4) should be introduced as

The Central Information Commissioners or the State Information Commissioners shall

close the appeal only after getting a no objection report from the appellant.


6/6

Urgent Amendments Needed to the Rti Act-081208

Documents

Transcript of Urgent Amendments Needed to the Rti Act-081208