The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday,
February 14, 2017.
The Delhi
University has left the RTI to Registrar and clerks who simply deny information
to hundreds of applicants on silly technical grounds and have audacity to spend
lakhs of public money for collecting Rs 10 fee though IPO for Rs 10 is
submitted.
They have
developed a technique of rejecting the RTI requests. R K Jain filed an RTI
application on 23.12.2013, requesting detailed information regarding the thesis
submitted by PKP Shreyaskar for MBA/Part-time (2009-2012). Jay Chanda, CPIO,
Delhi University, deliberately denied.
He alleged
that the CPIO erred in rejecting the application on the grounds that: (i) it is
addressed to CPIO, Faculty of Management Studies, instead of CPIO of Delhi
University, and (ii) the payee column of the postal order of Rs 10 was blank
and was not in favour of Registrar.
But the CPIO
ignored his written request to fill the appropriate name at the blank IPO. Jain
complained that returning amounts to rejection.
The Question:
Whether the CPIO of public authority DU can return/reject the original RTI
application alleging the IPO as defective, wherein Rs 10 is already paid into
account of Government of India? Answer is ‘no’.
Denial of
access was admitted but the CPIO made an unsuccessful attempt to justify.
Neither the CPIO nor the Registrar could explain the basis of this
‘institutional procedure for admissibility of RTI applications,’ who authorised
it and when etc.
The public
authority has not published this ‘procedure’ on its official website. They
claimed it as internal procedure. It is not shown to be a regulation passed by
appropriate body of the public authority.
The point 9 of this procedure authorises the CPIO to return the original
RTI application: 9.On receipt of the applications with the inadmissible
financial instruments from the Section Officer (Finance VII), a letter is
prepared by the Information Section addressed to the applicant forwarding the
application and financial instrument in original for the purpose of
rectification.
This
communication is sent by the University through the Deputy Registrar
(Information) & CPIO to facilitate its return to the individual concerned
through a systematic procedure of returning such applications as a routine in
the University over the years.
The CPIO
reiterated that the request was not considered as an RTI application and said
they returned the RTI applications routinely as per this unauthorised
procedure. Even assuming that it was an
authorised procedure, the RTI Act overrides it as per the Section 22 of RTI
Act. It is not just denial of this RTI
application, but a continuous practice of denying applications in routine,
which appears to be seriously flawed.
The
complainant explained that if RTI request of advocate is being stone-walled by
a self-proclaimed ‘institutional procedure,’ a student, who is at the mercy of
the University authorities, may not venture to challenge them for fear of their
stay in University, future and career.
Complaint
says that the students are in fact suffering a lot due to this attitude of
officers and hence he was seriously pursuing this issue. He also said that the
CPIO being a public servant was expected to act in conformity of the law under
which he was designated as an authority.
The RTI Act
specifically says that information request could be rejected on the grounds of
exemptions prescribed under Section 8 or 9 of RTI Act. Section 5(2) of RTI Act
says every public authority shall designate an officer to receive the
applications for information… The Act does not authorise such returning of RTI
applications in routine.
Section 5(2)
also says that every CPIO shall deal with requests from persons seeking
information and render reasonable assistance. Section 5(4) says the CPIO may
seek assistance of any other officers for proper discharge of his duties.
Section 5(5)
says any officer whose assistance is sought shall render all assistance to the
CPIO, and for the purposes of any contravention of provisions of this Act such
officer shall be treated as CPIO. All these provisions of RTI Act were ignored.
Returning/rejecting of application for RTI could be a ground for complaint
under Section 18(1). Returning of RTI application in this case amounts to
refusing to receive an application.
While
explaining the disposal of request, the RTI Act, Section 7(1) clearly said that
the CPIO…..either provides the information on payment of such fee as may be
prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8
and 9. The issue remained is the point of payment of fee. Whether
appellant/complainant paid the fee of Rs 10?
Only point
repeatedly argued and heavily dependent upon by the CPIO was that IPO was not
completely filled. No other reason for rejection was mentioned by the CPIO in
all of his explanations. The IPO stands proof of his payment of fee. Leaving
space for addressee blank in IPO does not render the entire RTI application as
‘no application’ as alleged by the CPIO. The IPO in this case is not invalid.
The CPIO has
every authority to collect the fee prescribed. But when IPO indicates that Rs
10 is paid to Government of India, the RTI application cannot be considered as
without payment. Even non-payment of fee cannot be a ground for rejection of
RTI application.
Only grounds
for rejection are specifically provided under Sections 8 and 9. Reading Section
6 and 7 together and understanding the spirit of RTI Act as a whole should make
the CPIO act reasonably and provide information rather than searching for
excuses to reject.
The
expression “on payment of such fee” means both fee of Rs 10 and further fee
representing cost of copying. For that the CPIO has to accept and study the RTI
Application, get ready to give the information sought, if not exempted, and
seek payment of cost of copying and on receipt of additional fee, if needed,
and then the information needs to be provided. What is the significance of fee
of ‘Rs. 10’?
Does it
represent the value of the information, cost of its searching, labour charge
for preparing the information or consideration for it? No. The decision of CPIO
to return the entire application lock stock and barrel on the excuse that
addressee space was left blank is without any legal base and totally
unjustifiable.
He refused
application at threshold and was not inclined to arrange information. The
mandatory 30-day limit is dismissed by this action. If CPIO has any issues with realisation of
that fee for his authority, he has every chance of addressing those issues. By
returning the application along with IPO he has closed all those chances.
The public
authority and the CPIO have built up a huge case, dozens of lengthy letters,
commissioning a Senior Standing Council, seeking adjournments, spending huge
amount in attending several adjournments over a period of 18 months, just for
Rs 10. It reminds one of the English maxims: ‘penny wise and pound
foolish.’
The CPIO, Jay
Chanda, who was repeatedly complaining that he was not given sufficient time
expressed satisfaction after using all time given to him, in the presence of
all his colleagues, officers.
The appeal is
allowed because the information sought was not given and all the ways to get
such information were closed by returning of RTI application. The CPIO is
directed to provide the information sought, free of cost.
The
Commission required under the Section 19(8)(iv) of RTI Act that the public
authority replace the ‘institutional practice’ with a regulation of
comprehensive procedural guidelines compatible with RTI Act to guide the CPIO and
FAA to prevent routine returning of IPOs and RTI applications as happened in
this case.
The
Commission also suggested to the public authority to arrange for sufficient
training for the RTI authorities, dealing officers and staff, provide latest
books on RTI Act, and supply the classic text books on “Administrative Law” and
“Right to Know” by late Professor S P Sathe. The training curriculum may also
include the judgment of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of Delhi High Court in JP Agrawal v Union of India,
(also available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104466988/). A penalty of Rs
25,000 was imposed on the CPIO. (Based on the decision in RK Jain v Delhi
University, CIC/RM/C/2014/000138-SA)