DNA: Mumbai: Monday, 07 July 2014.
The implementation of the RTI Act has seen several
ups and downs since it came into force about a decade ago. For a very long time
reluctant babus delayed providing information within the stipulated 30 days. Today, many of them even refuse to comply with the orders of the
state information commission.
In most cases where information is not provided,
no satisfactory explanation is given. The recourse for an applicant is to file
a first appeal with an officer – usually a senior official in the same
department – but this hasn't really worked.
It is only the state information commission that
has the power to penalize by imposing fines on the public information officer
for not providing the relevant information. Only the threat of penalty has
yielded information in some cases.
But there are several cases where senior officers
have ignored the directions of the commission. For example the case where
Shailesh Gandhi, former central information commissioner, had sought
information about undertrials and separately from the revenue department about
tribals' rights on their land.
When he did not get the information on undertrials
despite an order by the state information commissioner, Gandhi filed a fresh
appeal seeking to know what the authorities had done to comply with the order.
On the matter of the tribals, the commission had
ordered the details to be put up on the website for the public good, but the
authority has done nothing about it. Gandhi is awaiting a hearing on his fresh
appeals in both the matters.
"The appeal is pending with the commission but they have not provided me any
information as yet. The threat to the act is manifold," Gandhi told dna.
"While non-compliance is the new threat, the others are pending appeals
and absence of good commissioners who find a way out to ensure that information
is provided."
In the case of Kaustubh Gharat, another applicant,
the authorities did not comply with the commission's order in one case and
moved court in another.
Addressing an RTI convention recently, state chief
information commissioner Ratnakar Gaikwad, in fact, even blamed senior officers
in a case for creating "blockades".
In this matter, the Mumbai police commissioner was
asked to inquire into the conduct of an additional commissioner of police.
"He (additional police commissioner) had written and given that the
information should not be provided by the PIO. The police commissioner pulled
him up for that," Gaikwad told dna.
"Since the act has no contempt powers there is not much that a commissioner
can do. He can only impose a fine up to Rs25,000 and recommend disciplinary
action against the person. If still there is no compliance, there is not much
that an officer can do," says Gaikwad.
Bhaskar Prabhu, RTI activist, believes that if a
PIO does not give documents the information commissioner can call for the
documents. "the information from that can be given to the applicant. The
commissioners need to find ways to ensure compliance," he said.
Whose Right
To Information is it anyway?
The Right to
Information Assessment and Advocacy Group (RAAG) conducted a study titled
"Who uses the RTI Act and for what?" The highlights of this study
which were presented at the Western India RTI Convention 2014 suggested very
low satisfaction levels among RTI users.
RURAL
Not at all : 55%
Somewhat : 30%
Fully met : 15 %
URBAN
Not at all : 45%
Somewhat : 35%
Fully met : 20%
.JPG)
.JPG)
