The Indian Express: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 27 August 2022.
Several former and incumbent information commissioners (ICs) unanimously pointed out that the RTI Act has no provision that permits the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) to blacklist applicants. Issues of “frivolous and vexatious” applications form a minuscule part of such applications and can be dealt with differently, they added.
The remarks come in the backdrop of the Gujarat Information Commission blacklisting at least nine applicants, including one for lifetime across all departments of the state government, from filing applications under the RTI Act.
The information commissioners were speaking at a webinar organised by the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) Friday. Notably, a petition by Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel challenging a few such orders of blacklisting before the Gujarat High Court was adjourned Friday after request from the petitioner’s side.
Retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, who was formerly an information commissioner at the Central Information Commission (CIC), questioned such a blanket blacklisting of applicants saying, “I do not deny that vexatious and frivolous applications do not happen, they do come, there’s no doubt about it. Parliament has discussed this, lawmakers have, too, and the bureaucracy has commented about this too. But in my opinion, if the percentage of such applications is seen, it is not as large as it is projected, it is manageable. Every law is misused… and public delivery departments do see such applications.”
Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of NCPRI, said research has shown that “less than one per cent RTI applications can be termed as frivolous and vexatious.”
“Some ICs say ‘you can’t ask this question.’ Why can’t we? The kind of infrastructure that we should have had in RTI by now, we don’t…For example, not providing information, not complying with Section 4, requests being denied for the information being lengthy…there are unnecessary small obstacles brought in. Some have been blacklisted citing various grounds but the law is clear. If the same information is being asked for repetitively (a ground cited in some such orders of blacklisting by GIC), a decision can be taken…but a ban seems like an order of a fascist and it is wrong. In today’s digital age, there should not be any difficulty in compilation of information. The approach instead should be as to how information can be provided…RTI was considered as one of the best laws in the world by the UN,” Azad added.
Notably, many blacklisted among the nine applicants by GIC were employed with government departments and had sought information with respect to the department they were employed with. Bhardwaj said, “Research shows that less than five per cent of RTI applications across the country have been filed by public servants and there’s no flaw or bar on them if they are doing so. It only reflects the sad state of affairs where public servants have to use RTI to access information.”
Madhya Pradesh incumbent IC Rahul Singh, meanwhile, recalled instances when he has received calls from information officials inquiring if the IC can pass orders akin to blacklisting of applicants or not. “Legally, there are no such provisions under the RTI Act…Such orders of blacklisting are concerning and if I’m receiving such calls (from government officials inquiring about blacklisting orders), I’m sure many ICs are exploring the possibility and jurisdiction, which is dangerous and is necessary to be checked. It must be told with clarity…”
Addressing the issue of an oft cited ground of rejection of information under the RTI Act as being sought with a motive of blackmailing, Singh added, “In my opinion, for blackmailing, there are clear provisions of the offence under the IPC. If blackmailing is the motive, then why don’t officials initiate proceedings under IPC? We, as ICs, will be glad that some action was taken under IPC. When information sought for is information that should be in the public domain, we see even that being called blackmailing. You should put all information in the public domain, the blackmailing issue won’t remain…Instead, we end up seeing such regressive orders which are against the tenet of transparency enshrined in the Act.”
Echoing Singh, retired IAS Wajahat Habibullah, the first Chief Information Commissioner of India, too, called such orders of blacklisting to be beyond the mandate of the Act and “information should be disclosed proactively. RTI activist and former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi too said such orders of blacklisting applicants are “unprecedented” and that the act “does not say what information can be given, it only lists a few exceptions of what cannot be given, which is a very small part. This means that all the rest of the information has to be given.”
Several former and incumbent information commissioners (ICs) unanimously pointed out that the RTI Act has no provision that permits the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) to blacklist applicants. Issues of “frivolous and vexatious” applications form a minuscule part of such applications and can be dealt with differently, they added.
The remarks come in the backdrop of the Gujarat Information Commission blacklisting at least nine applicants, including one for lifetime across all departments of the state government, from filing applications under the RTI Act.
The information commissioners were speaking at a webinar organised by the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) Friday. Notably, a petition by Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel challenging a few such orders of blacklisting before the Gujarat High Court was adjourned Friday after request from the petitioner’s side.
Retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, who was formerly an information commissioner at the Central Information Commission (CIC), questioned such a blanket blacklisting of applicants saying, “I do not deny that vexatious and frivolous applications do not happen, they do come, there’s no doubt about it. Parliament has discussed this, lawmakers have, too, and the bureaucracy has commented about this too. But in my opinion, if the percentage of such applications is seen, it is not as large as it is projected, it is manageable. Every law is misused… and public delivery departments do see such applications.”
Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of NCPRI, said research has shown that “less than one per cent RTI applications can be termed as frivolous and vexatious.”
“Some ICs say ‘you can’t ask this question.’ Why can’t we? The kind of infrastructure that we should have had in RTI by now, we don’t…For example, not providing information, not complying with Section 4, requests being denied for the information being lengthy…there are unnecessary small obstacles brought in. Some have been blacklisted citing various grounds but the law is clear. If the same information is being asked for repetitively (a ground cited in some such orders of blacklisting by GIC), a decision can be taken…but a ban seems like an order of a fascist and it is wrong. In today’s digital age, there should not be any difficulty in compilation of information. The approach instead should be as to how information can be provided…RTI was considered as one of the best laws in the world by the UN,” Azad added.
Notably, many blacklisted among the nine applicants by GIC were employed with government departments and had sought information with respect to the department they were employed with. Bhardwaj said, “Research shows that less than five per cent of RTI applications across the country have been filed by public servants and there’s no flaw or bar on them if they are doing so. It only reflects the sad state of affairs where public servants have to use RTI to access information.”
Madhya Pradesh incumbent IC Rahul Singh, meanwhile, recalled instances when he has received calls from information officials inquiring if the IC can pass orders akin to blacklisting of applicants or not. “Legally, there are no such provisions under the RTI Act…Such orders of blacklisting are concerning and if I’m receiving such calls (from government officials inquiring about blacklisting orders), I’m sure many ICs are exploring the possibility and jurisdiction, which is dangerous and is necessary to be checked. It must be told with clarity…”
Addressing the issue of an oft cited ground of rejection of information under the RTI Act as being sought with a motive of blackmailing, Singh added, “In my opinion, for blackmailing, there are clear provisions of the offence under the IPC. If blackmailing is the motive, then why don’t officials initiate proceedings under IPC? We, as ICs, will be glad that some action was taken under IPC. When information sought for is information that should be in the public domain, we see even that being called blackmailing. You should put all information in the public domain, the blackmailing issue won’t remain…Instead, we end up seeing such regressive orders which are against the tenet of transparency enshrined in the Act.”
Echoing Singh, retired IAS Wajahat Habibullah, the first Chief Information Commissioner of India, too, called such orders of blacklisting to be beyond the mandate of the Act and “information should be disclosed proactively. RTI activist and former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi too said such orders of blacklisting applicants are “unprecedented” and that the act “does not say what information can be given, it only lists a few exceptions of what cannot be given, which is a very small part. This means that all the rest of the information has to be given.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
