Moneylife: Pune: Thursday, October 16, 2014.
According to
a study, nearly 49% of RTI applications
are about information that ought to be available in the public domain as
mandated under Section 4 of the RTI Act and another 18% are about information
that should routinely be provided to citizens.
It has been
nine years since the Right to Information (RTI) Act has been implemented but
what the most notable defiance by the public authorities is the proactive
disclosure under Section 4. The Peoples Monitoring Report conducted by RTI
Assessment and Advocacy Group (RAAG) and SAMYA Centre for Equity Studies once
again proves that the government is hell bent on official secrecy.
The in-depth
study conducted by Anjali Bharadwaj, Amrita Johri and Shekhar Singh, across
several states pinpoints to various facets of the RTI Act, but the section on
pro-active disclosures is particularly distressing. The report states: “Nearly
70% of the RTI applications seek information that should have been proactively
made public without citizens having to file an RTI application. About 49%
sought information, which should have been proactively provided under section 4
of the RTI Act (or other similar sections in other laws). While 18% sought
information that should have been proactively provided to the applicant without
her having to file an RTI application either because they were responses that
should have been given as per prescribed office procedures or under other
laws.”
The study
recommends that one or more Public Information Officers (PIOs) should be
allocated the duty of ensuring whether Section 4 provisions are being
implemented. The Information Commission should institute an enquiry if the PIO
fails to provide information which comes under Section 4. The Commission should
award compensation to the RTI applicant in the case of a second appeal wherein
the information should have been pro-actively disclosed. The nodal agencies
should ensure that public authorities are regularly updating information and
templates that have been made for pro-active disclosures should be used widely
by public authorities. Taking the Mizoram example, no payment should be levied
on the RTI applicant for any information that he or she should have rightfully
got under Section 4 of the RTI Act. The study also suggests the services of
private agencies to monitor the implementation.
Following
are the recommendations in detail:
•
Appoint
PIO to oversee Sec 4 compliance: Given the very poor implementation of Section
4 of the RTI Act by most public authorities (Pas), the Department of Personnel
and Training (DoPT) and the state nodal agencies should direct all PAs to
designate one or more PIOs as responsible for ensuring compliance with all the
provisions of section 4. Where these directions are not complied with by the
PAs within a reasonable period, the ICs should use s. 19(8) (a) (ii) which “require” that each PA designate one or more
PIOs responsible for ensuring compliance with all the provisions of section 4.
[DoPT, state nodal departments, ICs]
•
Institute
enquiry against PIOs who do not comply: Where a complaint is received against
non-compliance with any provision of Section 4, especially 4(1) (b), (c), and
(d), the commission should institute an enquiry under s. 18(1)(f) read with s.
18(2) of the RTI Act, against the designated PIO or any other official
responsible, as per S. 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act. If the PIO or any other
official is found guilty, an appropriate penalty should be imposed by the IC,
under s. 20(1) of the RTI act
•
Applicant
should be compensated for waste of time: Where an appeal or complaint comes
before an IC relating to information that should rightly have been made
available suo motu under section 4 of the RTI Act, but was not, the IC should
also exercise its powers under S. 19(8)(b) and award compensation to the
appellant/complainant for having to waste time and energy seeking information
that should have been provided proactively. The IC should also direct the PA to
provide the information free of cost
• PIOs
should consistently update information: To ensure that the information is
proactively put out and is up to date, the RTI nodal agencies should direct all
PAs that each web site, and other medium and publication, relating to S. 4
compliance must carry the date (where appropriate for each bit of information)
on which the information was uploaded/printed and the date till which it is
valid/it would be revalidated. ICs should encourage compliance by imposing
heavy penalties and awarding compensation…
• Templates
for proactive disclosures should be widely used: Though the DoPT has developed
some comprehensive templates to facilitate proactive disclosure of information3
these are not yet being widely used. Also, many more templates are required for
proactive disclosure of many other types of information. Therefore, appropriate
governments and competent authorities should commission professional agencies
to develop additional templates and to promote their use across public
authorities
•
Take
help of professional agencies: A coordinated approach needs to be developed and
implemented with nodal agencies and information commissions pushing public
authorities to proactively disclose an increasing amount of information.
Professional agencies can be encouraged to help the PAs do this, and even in
some cases to take the responsibility
of effectively displaying and regularly updating the information, on behalf of
the PA. In many countries, including the USA, agencies external to the PA are
given the responsibility of ensuring that public declarations required under
the law are easily accessible, accurate, comprehensive, and updated.
•
Applicants
should get information free of cost: Learning from Mizoram (see Box 7.7 in
Chapter 7), all appropriate governments and competent authorities should make a
rule that no fee or additional fee would be charged for any application seeking
information that should have been proactively provided or disclosed, but was
not. ICs should also order refund of fee and additional fee when it comes to
their notice that such fee has been charged for information that should
actually have been, but was not, available proactively. This would encourage
all PAs to ensure that all that was legally required to be proactively
displayed or communicated was being disclosed.
The report
rightly points out: “Imagine the saving in paper, PIO, FAA, and IC time, and
the time of 30 lakh applicants.’’
(DOPT Guideline)
(DOPT Guideline)
.JPG)
.JPG)
