Tehelka: New Delhi: Wednesday,
April 19, 2017.
The NDA
government’s move to amend 40 laws of the RTI Act, which include ensuring
anonymity in the political funding, have added to the hurdles and worries of
transparency seekers.
Activists
working for transparency in governance have a reason to be alarmed at the NDA
government’s move to change rules framed under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act. The government’s track-record on transparency is uninspiring. It has just
hurried through the Lok Sabha amendments to 40 laws, including one that ensures
anonymity in political funding.
An amendment
proposes that an applicant can file complaints within 135 days of filing the
application under the Act, and in case of delay a request for condonation will
also have to be filed. There is another provision empowering the CIC to convert
a complaint into a second appeal.
Thus, as
proposed, it can order the disclosure of information on a complaint. The
Commission can also allow an amendment to the complaint during the hearing, if
other remedies have been exhausted. Also, as suggested, the CIC has been given
the power to decide if an appeal or a complaint can be withdrawn on the
applicant’s request. However, once the issue has been decided, the withdrawal
will not be allowed. Since the RTI Act is one of the most empowering laws
passed in India, any attempt to dilute it is bound to invite disapproval and
criticism.
In a recent
circular, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department
of Personnel and Training has invited comments on the draft RTI Rules, 2017.
These Rules would replace RTI Rules, 2012. Suggestions from concerned
stakeholders were taken until April 15, 2017, via email to Preeti Khanna, Under
Secretary (RTI), North Block, at usrti-dopt@nic.in.The Rules add definitions
for the Chief Information Commissioner, Decision, Information Commissioner,
Non-compliance, Representative, Secretary and Section.
They add
provisions elaborating on the documents and the format for filing a complaint
with the Commission, return of such complaint, and the procedure for deciding
complaints. Compliance of orders of the Commission has been prescribed to be
filed within 30 days of the date of the order, in a case where no time period
is fixed for the same. The new draft rules also allow the Commission to use its
discretion for allowing withdrawal of appeal or a complaint if appellant
requests but such requests cannot be entertained once the matter has been
decided by it.
Peril of
activists
Some RTI
activists have objected to such suggestions by the government in the past
saying information seekers may be coerced by people with vested interests and
may even be killed as the information against them cannot be ordered to be
disclosed in such cases. The rules also introduce provisions like providing a
copy of complaint and appeal to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
before approaching the CIC.
A proof in
this regard will also be submitted to the Commission along with the complaint or
appeal. The applicants will have to declare that the matter submitted by them
before the Commission has not been decided or pending before the Commission or
any court. The applicants can now file complaints within 135 days of filing the
RTI application only. Any delay in filing the complaint will have to be
accompanied with the request for condonation of delay. If the RTI applicant
does not know the name and address of the CPIO or the First Appellate authority
in a government department, he will have to provide a copy of his complaint to
the department before approaching the Commission. The new proposed process asks
the Commission to get replies from the CPIO within a specified time before
issuing notices to them.
New
provisions
The Rules
also introduce a provision for amendment or withdrawal of an Appeal during the
course of hearing. A provision for abatement of an Appeal or a complaint on the
death of the Appellant has also been introduced. Persons desiring to remain
anonymous can file RTI petitions through Post-Box numbers. Little doubt that
some of the rules put up on the official site for public comments will
discourage the healthy trend of RTI activism in this country. These include
raising the application fee to 50, passing on the cost of reply and postage to
the applicant, rejection of a hand-written application and an application
exceeding 500 words. These may appear harmless but collectively they raise the
bar for access to information. The provision for closing an RTI file on the
death of the applicant, requiring the restart of the process for seeking
information, serves, even if inadvertently, to aggravate risk to the life of
public-spirited citizens.
The proposed
new rules under section 27 of Right to Information (RTI) 2017 to modify the 2005
RTI Act give time upto April 15 to people to give their suggestions and views.
The major changes in the newly proposed RTI rules read that any application, in
general, shall not exceed the word limit of 500 words, excluding annexures and
will contain the addresses of the Central Public Information Officer and that
of the applicant. However, it has also been mentioned that no application shall
be rejected only on the basis of the word limit. The Congress; however, didn’t
seem to agree with the proposal as the senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel, in
his tweet, alleged that the government is trying to intimidate citizens with
new rules.
Hurdles
not transparency
Besides,
citizens seeking information about their entitlements or rights are being put
to hurdles seen in courts. In a 2013 case the Supreme Court had ruled that RTI
appeals and complaints are not in the nature of a civil or criminal dispute,
and information commissions established under the RTI Act are not
quasi-judicial tribunals. An RTI application/appeal therefore should not end
with the death of the applicant. If states too follow the Central RTI rules,
the level of risk and costs for RTI activists can be well imagined. The
government should instead pick up more suitable Information Commissioners rather
than handing over these posts to loyalists and find ways for faster disposal of
RTI applications. The apex court has questioned the functioning of information
commissions and quality of orders passed.
.JPG)
.JPG)
