The Wire: New Delhi: Thursday, August 30, 2018.
With the Centre failing
to make any new appointments to the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the
past two years and the strength of the panel dwindling to seven against the 11
sanctioned posts, information commissioners in order to keep the pendency
levels low have of late started
clamping down on appellants filing frivolous and multiple applications.
In one such recent
orders, chief information commissioner R.K. Mathur directed that an appellant,
who did not appear in person or through someone despite having filed a large
number of appeals and complaints against different public authorities, “be
called personally in New Delhi for all his future cases”.
Mathur’s order came in
response to a plea filed by Shiv Kumar Agrawal with the additional registrar of
the Supreme Court in which information had been sought regarding a letter sent
by the appellant to the court. During the hearing in the matter before the
Commission, the respondent chief public information officer of Supreme Court
submitted that a detailed reply had already been provided to the complainant.
He also submitted that “the complainant had filed numerous RTI applications
broadly on the same subject matter”.
‘Appeal process
being misused despite satisfactory replies’
Mathur observed that
while the steps and actions taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI
application were “satisfactory”, despite due notice from the Commission, the
complainant neither appeared in person nor through someone duly authorised by
him to press his case. He also observed that Agrawal had filed a large number
of appeals or complaints against different public authorities but had not
appeared in any case. Therefore, he directed the deputy registrar of the
Commission to ensure that the complainant asked to appear in New Delhi for all
his future cases.
In another recent
order, central information commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu while disposing of
a plea filed by Girish Prasad Gupta with the CPIO of the Department of Posts,
expressed deep concern at the appellant filing as many as 47 second appeals
despite being provided “sufficient information”.
‘Fix Rs 100 fee for
second appeal’
In light of such
seemingly frivolous applications, which divert the officers of departments from
their work, Acharyulu suggested that “this can be prevented by fixing a fee for
second appeal with specific justification by the appellant, which makes it a serious
exercise.” He, therefore, strongly recommended fixation of Rs.100 as fee for
second appeal along with a mandatory detailed written submission justifying the
same.
In this case, the
appellant had sought information regarding the report given by sub-postmaster,
Begusarai East Division concerning clearance of dropping of dirty water into a
drain. The CIC also noted that the department had been “tolerating the unparliamentarily
language used in his petitions.”
Man had filed over
100 applications on the same subject
“The appellant remained
absent during the hearing today while all concerned officers in 47 second
appeals from several Postal Divisions have represented before this Commission
from various NIC studios. The officers have explained that the appellant has
filed more than 100 RTI applications and is in the habit of filing multiple RTI
applications on the same subject matter,” Acharyulu recorded, adding that “irrespective
of furnishing of information, the appellant took each case to first appeal and
most of them to second appeal also in a very routine manner.”
While Gupta did not
appear for the second appeals, Acharyulu said the Commission had to send 94
notices (both appellant and respondent authority) separately by speed post in
94 envelopes, each costing approximately Rs 25, besides spending manpower and
stationery in dealing with his applications.
Stating that the
Commission finds this to be a “frivolous case of routine second appeals without
any regard for public money and time of public offices”, the CIC said “this
cannot be encouraged under any circumstances”. He, therefore, recommended
fixing Rs 100 as a fee for second appeal along with a mandatory detailed
written submission justifying the same.
On the provisions that
cover this aspect, he said: “Even the Right to Information Act, 2005 nowhere
mentions about the fee at first and second appeals while prescribing Rs 10 for
each and every RTI application. The RTI Rules prescribe the rate of copying fee
only and the law also did not prescribe any fee for first appeal.”
‘Frivolous appeals
result in wastage of public money and time of Commission’
Since the second appeal
lies with an independent body, which is specially constituted for the purpose
of adjudicating the appeals and complaints, Acharyulu said “such frivolous
second appeals will cause huge wastage of public money and time of the
Commission.” Therefore, he recommended that the Department of Personnel and
Training consider this suggestion of fixing fee for second appeal, put it for
consultation, collect the opinion of all the stakeholders and take an
appropriate decision to frame proper rules only pertaining to imposition of fee
without tinkering other legal aspects of access to information.
Incidentally, both
Mathur and Acharyulu, along with two other information commissioners
Yashovardhan Azad and Amitava Bhattacharya, are due to retire in November this
year after which the Commission would be left with just three information
commissioners if no new appointments are made by then.
.JPG)
.JPG)
