The Quint: National: Saturday, May 05, 2018.
There is no
denying that the Right to Information Act has, over the years, been a useful
tool to unearth corruption and highlight policy pitfalls. However, successive
governments have attempted to tweak this very law, which has more often than
not ended up complicating instead of easing people’s access to information.
After
vociferous protests against its 2017 Rules Draft, the Modi government released
a revised draft, which the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) was
initially reluctant to share. Activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra was told that
“cabinet papers could not be shared under RTI”.
However, he
appealed to the Chief Information Commission (CIC) and was able to obtain a
copy of the revised rules under which citizens of India can exercise their
Right to Information. The Quint has accessed a copy of this draft, which has
several shortfalls that could erode the stated intent of the law.
Problems
with the Revised Draft of the 2017 RTI Rules:
1.
Arbitrary RTI Fee
As per the
existing RTI Rules 2012, the RTI fee is Rs 10 for an application which shall
not contain more than 500 words, excluding the annexure charges.
In the draft
RTI Rules 2017, an addition was made that the RTI fee will be Rs 10 or “as
notified by Central Government from time to time.”
Objections
by Stakeholders:
According to
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), this Rule leaves a window open for
the Central Government to change the application fee from time to time through
notifications. They added, “varying the quantum of application fee through any
other notification will be illegitimate and invalid.”
NCPRI said,
“as per the provisions of the RTI Act, fee can only be prescribed through Rules
and therefore, any attempt to empower the Central Government otherwise, through
Rules, is without a legal basis.”
Despite
strong objections raised to this Rule, no changes were made in the revised
draft by the government.
2.
Withdrawal/Abatement of Appeal
One of the
points on which the draft RTI Rules 2017 has been severely criticised is the
addition of Rule 12. It says, “the proceedings pending before the Commission
shall abate on the death of the appellant”. Which means that if an RTI activist
died while their appeal is pending with the CIC, the matter would be closed.
However,
after protests, this rule was deleted by the government in the revised draft,
which said “the Committee recommends deleting this rule keeping in view the
suggestions by most of the stakeholders that such a rule may put the RTI
appellant in a vulnerable position”.
Stakeholders
worry that the government could be tempted to re-introduce this provision in
the final RTI Rules 2017 without their knowledge.
3. Filing
Complaint to the CIC Is Time-Bound
The
Government has introduced a new Rule 12 (iv) in the draft RTI Rules 2017. It
states that if a complainant is aggrieved (for receiving an unsatisfactory or
no reply), they must file an appeal with the CIC within 90 days. Earlier, no
such deadline existed.
Objections
by Stakeholders:
Both CHRI and
NCPRI have raised strong objections and say the proposed amendment is “without
any legal basis.”
Nothing in
Section 18 of the RTI Act stipulates a deadline for the submission of
complaints to the CIC. Parliament has deliberately kept the process open-ended,
said CHRI. Despite strong objections raised on this Rule, no changes were made
in the revised draft by the government.
4. All
Encompassing Powers to the CIC
Another new
Rule was introduced in the draft RTI Rules 2017 which empowers the CIC to
decide on the merit of the complaint. A subsection of the rule book states –
“on perusal of the case file, if the CIC is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds to inquire into the matter, an enquiry in respect thereof shall be
made, otherwise the complaint shall be closed by passing an order.”
Objections
by Stakeholders:
This Rule,
stakeholders argue, will allow the CIC to close a complaint without even giving
an opportunity to the complainant to present his case or be heard.
The
government has so far remained unmoved by the objection raised by the CHRI and
the Rule continues to be present in the revised draft as well.
5. Supreme
Powers to the CIC Chief
Further, the
new draft Rules 2017 gives the Chief of the CIC the authority to decide which
case should be heard/disposed by a single bench. It states– “an
appeal/complaint shall be posted before a Single Bench for hearing/disposal,
only after the Chief Information Commissioner issues an order.”
Objections
by Stakeholders:
According to
the stakeholders, this Rule is in contravention of Section 12(4) of the RTI Act
which states that the Chief Information Commissioner shall be assisted by other
Information Commissioners in dispensing his duties.
The
management of the affairs of the CIC is a collective responsibility of all
Information Commissioners. But, the revised draft continues to carry this Rule
despite objection.
6.
Compliance with Orders of the CIC
Approaching
the CIC is a last resort for an RTI activist. As per the RTI Act, the CIC can
penalise non-compliant government departments. But in reality, that does not
happen.
As per the
revised Rule 2017, the government had further diluted this and proposed that a
communication of non-compliance shall be entertained by the CIC only if it is
made within 3 months from the date of non-compliance. And even if the applicant
manages to do that, their complaint will be entertained by the CIC only if
they’re convinced that the complaint was not satisfactorily dealt with.
For years we
had been asking the government to introduce a new rule that makes it binding on
the government to obey the CIC order. It will save applicants from filing a
court case against the government due to non-compliance of CIC’s order.
(Commodore
Lokesh K Batra, RTI Activist)
Objections by
Stakeholders:
According to
the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), a collective
of activists, the CIC is legally empowered to impose penalties, award
compensation as per the RTI Act. However, in reality, it does not exercise this
right to penalise non-compliant government departments. Additionally, the NCPRI
contends that the CIC should keep track of the matter till such time the
required information is provided to the applicant.
Taking note
of these objections raised by the NCPRI, the government deleted the rule that
directs the CIC to take stern against non-compliant government departments. The
revised RTI Rule 2017 now states: “the Committee had recommended seeking legal
opinion as to whether rules can be made on this matter.”
The
government seems to be dragging its feet on finalising the RTI Rules, 2017. As
shown above, the government continues to turn a deaf ear to some of the crucial
Rules which requires amendment for easy and timely accessibility of the
information by stakeholders.
The revised
draft will clearly lead to more complications if finalised by the government as
RTI Rules, 2017.
.JPG)
.JPG)
