The Wire: New Delhi: Sunday, June 03, 2018.
Though it has
been 13 years since the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by
parliament, the Central Information Commission (CIC) recently had to remind the
Lok Sabha to improve mechanisms for receiving and responding to RTI
applications.
Chief
information commissioner R.K. Mathur on May 30 advised the secretary general of
Lok Sabha Secretariat to “make adequate arrangements in the Lok Sabha Secretariat
for receiving RTI applications submitted in person and to receive payment of
fee”. In this regard, he said, “The security also needs to be appropriately
instructed to help RTI applicants.”
Recommending
steps which would streamline the process, Mathur said, “The mechanisms of
receiving RTI applications in Lok Sabha Secretariat must be displayed
prominently on a notice board.”
`Send old
records to National Archives of India’
He said that
the Lok Sabha should send its old records to the National Archives of India,
and stated that the secretary general of the lower house “may look into the
applicability of the Public Records Act, 1993” and that he may also “look into
the matter of maintenance of Lok Sabha website and display of quality
certificate on their website in consultation with the Director General, NIC
(National Informatics Centre)”.
The CIC
chief’s observations came in a matter filed by appellant Anil Sharma, who had
in January 2017 sought four pages of the Lok Sabha debates. During the hearing
on May 30, Sharma demanded that the Lok Sabha secretariat provide him certified
copies of the four pages of the debates, relating to the cultivation of opium,
that the house had seen on April 6, 1979.
The appellant
had also contended that copies of these debates had not been put up on the
website in compliance with Section 4(1)(b)(xv) of the RTI Act. He had also
pointed out that an assistant central public information officer was working as
the CPIO and had opposed this. Further, Sharma had demanded that more than one
CPIO, who also acts as the first appellate authority, should be assigned in the
Lok Sabha secretariat.
He also
suggested that a display board for receiving RTI applications be put up in the
secretariat, the role of transparency officer be defined on the website and old
records of the Lok Sabha secretariat be kept in the National Archives as per
the Public Records Act, 1993. He had also pointed out that the Lok Sabha website
maintained by the NIC was not proper, as the records relating to RTI
applications and first appeals were hosted on a private internet protocol
address. He had also sought the display of the quality certificate of the
website on it.
`Digitisation
of old records in progress’
The Lok Sabha
secretariat official had submitted during the hearing that the copy of the
pages of the debates sought had already been provided. He also stated that the
secretariat was in the process of digitising old records, which would be put up
on the Lok Sabha website for the general public.
On hearing
both sides, Mathur had stated that there was no provision for a transparency
officer in the RTI Act and also held that there was no mala fide intent on the
part of the CPIO.
However, he
issued a detailed advisory to the Lok Sabha secretariat to improve its RTI
compliance.
`Expedite
process of uploading Lok Sabha debates on website’
Mathur also
advised the secretary general of the Lok Sabha secretariat to expedite the
process of uploading Lok Sabha debates on their website. He also stated that
“it is to be ensured that the reply of RTI application is sent only by the
CPIO” and that “more than one CPIO/FAA may be designated as per requirement.”
Further,
Mathur said the first appellate authority should give the opportunity of a
hearing to the RTI applicant at the first appellate stage in view of the
Supreme Court’s judgment in Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., wherein it had observed that the principle was “clear
and settled” that “the right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific
statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific
law, it is excluded. It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vest
the person with consequences of civil nature.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
