DNA: Mumbai: Saturday, June 08, 2013.
As the state
chief information commissioner, Ratnakar Gaikwad completes one year in his
office on Friday. DNA caught up with him to know the status of RTI in the
state, pendency, his plans for the commission and what he feels is required to
better implementation of the RTI Act.
You have
completed one year, what do you have to say about the usage of RTI Act and
commission?
The Act has
empowered the citizen a lot. Having spent 37 years in bureaucracy, I can tell
you that it has really empowered citizen in the way that they fight fiercely
with those they feared to approach like police in particular.
It has
definitely brought transparency and accountability. Officers think twice before
taking any decision. Bureaucracy has started understanding that they have to be
accountable. Tomorrow not one but many people can question them. And lastly
they have begun to realise they are trustees and not lords or kings as it used
to be during the British and even after independence.
What is
the status of pendency?
At my bench
second appeal filed today will be heard within 15 days. From 4,094 appeals in
May 31, 2012 when I joined on June 8, it is now down to 58 as on May 31, 2013.
The state has
26,660 appeals pending and that figure can improve if the numbers of
commissioners are increased. As of now we have three posts vacant and some of
the commissioners have to shuttle between two benches. We have written to the
CM to appoint more commissioners particularly in Vidarbha region as
geographically it is difficult for any commission to take hearing from that
side.
At some
benches people travel 20 hours just to hear cases. We are also suggesting that
video conferencing / Skype facility be made available and online applications
start.
Your
monthly intake of appeals, the figures online state is less as compared to the
other benches.
The
applications are slotted to the benches as per the place where applicant lives.
The procedure that was earlier is followed. In fact what we are coming to
consensus is that public information officers (PIO) or First Appellate
Authorities (FAA) may not come for hearings from interiors if they have given a
hearing.
By paying a
fee of Rs 10 by applicant, why should a PIO or First Appellate Authority spend
large sums of money to fly or travel by train for hearing? We are suggesting
that he file an affidavit if he has given the information. That will save cost
for state and they will be available in their offices to discharge their
duties. We are also suggesting that video conferencing / skype facility be made
available.
Going back
to video conferencing and online application, where and when will these
facilities come up?
We want them
to come in all six benches except headquarters and Mumbai as people can come
here. We feel they are needed in the commission and at the Mantralay or their
offices so that neither the applicant nor PIO or FAA has to travel too far.
The state is
requested to secure no-objection certificate from Department of Personnel and
Training use their software for inline applications. The IT secretary has
already visited us on this. After applications start we will look to have that
at the second appeal stage as well.
Mumbai
bench has second highest pending appeals after Pune. You were to take up
hearing for that.
The pendency
at Mumbai bench is 4,041 as on May 31, 2013. Of these there are 900 cases 2011,
over 1,500 of 2012 and rest of 2013. I feel in one year’s time, we will be able
to bring the waiting period to 2013. So next year appeals of 2013 will be
heard. Again appointment of another commissioner will improve figures.
What is
the big challenge facing the Act?
I think we
should be more open to the RTI amendments. It should not be treated like a shut
case. There is no reason why first appellate authorities (FAA) should not be
taken to task for not improving suo motto disclosures. Section 4 implementation
depends on them and there is no reason why they should not be pulled up for not
even doing what the Act stated needs to be done in 120 days.
The other
issue is of government officer and some citizens filing ‘n’ number of
applications for harassment. As public servants and for those regularly filing
RTI for harassment there has to be some limit to the appeals that can be filed.
One officer from sales tax department has filed over 100 applications in his
own department.
There needs
to be some bar on the free pages given under the BPL category. They should be
restricted to 100 as some people are misusing it. There are some people who
file RTI for blackmailing that there should be powers with commission to
blacklist them.
Section 4
(suo motto disclosure) has not improved. Your comment.
In our latest
orders we have asked public authorities to put up certain documents voluntarily
like details of under trials, FIRs etc. I have also written to authorities that
they should take our directives seriously else action under section 166 of the
IPC will be taken. That is the farthest we can go as the Act states that “In
its decision” we can give directions.
These are
largely to the PIO. That is where we feel that as watchdogs of RTI we need some
direct powers to pull up FAAs as PIOs cannot do much. Some of the FAA are such
that they do not even get papers properly for hearing. They are loose sheets
not even indexed properly. Commission should be able to take such people to
task.
Compliance
of fines has been a problem too. How are you able to make sure there is more
compliance?
Separate
registers are maintained to note the compliance of penalties. With respect to
information received by applicant, it is still an issue as applicant has to
inform us through complaints if he has received data or not. Commission is
otherwise not expected to ensure compliance. That is the job of public
authority.
At the
commission what are the initiatives you have taken to improve functioning?
We are
looking to become paperless office and work has started. All old files that are
more than one year are destroyed and only papers that are important are stored
in digital format. We have taken some workshops also for people weaker section
of society for this.
.JPG)
.JPG)
