Mondaq: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 27 July 2023.
The article analyses reasons specifically focusing on the story of intimidation in Gujarat and the RTI Amendment Act of 2019 that has led to weakening of the Right to Information Act.
Meta Description: Citizens have become cognizant of rights pertaining to privacy, education, technology and most importantly "information". With the codification of the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005, India pursued to uphold its basis of democracy, sovereignty by embracing accountability and transparency. But has the goal sustained? The article shall answer the same. This article analyses the causation that led to the weaking of the RTI Act by focusing on a story of intimidation in Gujarat, a state in India. The article also emphases on international aspect of RTI, supported by judicial pronouncements and certain suggestions for improved application of the legislation.
INTRODUCTION
The fight to know information or gain knowledge that concerns your private or public interest had been ongoing globally.1 This demand for greater accessibility to information has revolutionized the technological era we live in. After around 58 years of independence and various judicial pronouncements, the "Right to Information" was established as a statute2 that was enacted to protect, promote and defend the citizen's right to know while guarding their fundamental and human rights.
But with time, a tool that was enacted to protect the citizens interest has now itself turned into an imposed violative piece of legislation. There are many instances that prove the same, but in this article, we shall focus on how the appellate authority of Right to Information in Gujarat imposed a fine of? 10,000 on an applicant for merely using his right to information.
India, Gujarat, Right to Information, Imposition and Gujarat Information Commission.
A Story of Intimidation in Gujarat
In June 2021, a resident of Himmat Nagar, Gujarat filed an application under Section 63 of the RTI Act to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Sabarkantha District Court.4 The application requested the cause list of Fast Track and Special Courts during the first COVID-19 lockdown period (2020) instituted under the:
It is important to note that information like that of Cause Lists are a vital part of ascertaining public accountability which actually is expected to be proactively disclosed under Section 45 of the RTI Act by the District Legal Services Authority's (DLSA) Public Information Officer (PIO) of Himmat Nagar. But the PIO did not disclose the asked information, creating substantial barriers in effective implementation and keeping up the spirit of the RTI Act. To add, the appellate authority obligated the applicant to attend the online court hearing supplementing their unfair bureaucratic expectation, which stems apathy towards the digitally divided conventional reality of India.
The whole proceeding was also an acute violation of the natural principle of justice, i.e., "audi alteram partem" as the applicating was unceasingly called out and harassed by repeatedly asking the reason for filing such an application which is downright against and violative of the provision alluded under Section 6 (2) of the RTI Act which avers that the applicant seeking the information shall not be required to present any reasons for doing so.
Further, the Appellate Authority also imposed a walloping fine of ? 10,000 on the applicant. Over and above, the public authority revealed information such as the name, address and contact details of the applicant to the local newspaper to oblige as a deterrent, which is not only a violation of the right to privacy but also constructs bigoted intimidation upon the RTI applicants from engaging in "procedural remedies" when denied public information under the RTI Act.
Is imposing fine on RTI applicants illegal?
In the said case, the Appellate Authority imposed a fine of ?10,000 on the appellant as a deterrence but it is imperative to note that there is no such provision in the RTI Act or the Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules 20056, that authorises a public authority to impose fines or costs on an applicant. The process of filing an RTI application is not analogous to a usual court hearing. Furthermore, the appellate authority lacks the capacity to levy fines
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT
The landmark cases which have established the jurisprudence of the Right to Information are as follows:
With respect to the Story of Intimidation in Gujarat where the RTI application was initially rejected by the Public Information Officer asserting that the information enquired (that is the Cause List) was not ruminated to be "an information on record or public information", it is pertinent to refer to Manish Khanna v. High Court of Delhi11, a Central Information Commission case, where the Joint Registrar and PIO held that records such as the Cause List which are however only temporarily maintained come within the purview of "Record" as per the Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act which defines "information" and hence would include information that is transitory as well which the applicant is allowed to access for any given period of time rationing that such information is in control of the public authority/officials.
Advanced by the insolence of the judiciary and denial of information sought in the legitimate public interest, the aggrieved appellant approached the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) file a complaint under Section 18 (1) (f) of the RTI Act. The GIC then issued certain instructions to the Appellate Authority of Himmat Nagar but the authority did not reply to the said instructions within the stipulated time frame. In addition to the pending complaint with GIC, the appellate authority unfairly deducted the amount without any prior notice to the appellant.
How does this Story of Intimidation in Gujarat weakens the Act of RTI?
Even after precedents, strong jurisprudence, movement by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and formation of the National Campaign on People's Right to Information (NCPRI), illegalities and indicative intimidation still exists in the implementation of the RTI Act.
Nonetheless, the RTI Act has ensued to be powerless or deteriorated in its effective implementation for the following reasons:
The article analyses reasons specifically focusing on the story of intimidation in Gujarat and the RTI Amendment Act of 2019 that has led to weakening of the Right to Information Act.
Meta Description: Citizens have become cognizant of rights pertaining to privacy, education, technology and most importantly "information". With the codification of the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005, India pursued to uphold its basis of democracy, sovereignty by embracing accountability and transparency. But has the goal sustained? The article shall answer the same. This article analyses the causation that led to the weaking of the RTI Act by focusing on a story of intimidation in Gujarat, a state in India. The article also emphases on international aspect of RTI, supported by judicial pronouncements and certain suggestions for improved application of the legislation.
INTRODUCTION
The fight to know information or gain knowledge that concerns your private or public interest had been ongoing globally.1 This demand for greater accessibility to information has revolutionized the technological era we live in. After around 58 years of independence and various judicial pronouncements, the "Right to Information" was established as a statute2 that was enacted to protect, promote and defend the citizen's right to know while guarding their fundamental and human rights.
But with time, a tool that was enacted to protect the citizens interest has now itself turned into an imposed violative piece of legislation. There are many instances that prove the same, but in this article, we shall focus on how the appellate authority of Right to Information in Gujarat imposed a fine of? 10,000 on an applicant for merely using his right to information.
India, Gujarat, Right to Information, Imposition and Gujarat Information Commission.
A Story of Intimidation in Gujarat
In June 2021, a resident of Himmat Nagar, Gujarat filed an application under Section 63 of the RTI Act to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Sabarkantha District Court.4 The application requested the cause list of Fast Track and Special Courts during the first COVID-19 lockdown period (2020) instituted under the:
- Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989;
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; and
- Bail-related cases.
It is important to note that information like that of Cause Lists are a vital part of ascertaining public accountability which actually is expected to be proactively disclosed under Section 45 of the RTI Act by the District Legal Services Authority's (DLSA) Public Information Officer (PIO) of Himmat Nagar. But the PIO did not disclose the asked information, creating substantial barriers in effective implementation and keeping up the spirit of the RTI Act. To add, the appellate authority obligated the applicant to attend the online court hearing supplementing their unfair bureaucratic expectation, which stems apathy towards the digitally divided conventional reality of India.
The whole proceeding was also an acute violation of the natural principle of justice, i.e., "audi alteram partem" as the applicating was unceasingly called out and harassed by repeatedly asking the reason for filing such an application which is downright against and violative of the provision alluded under Section 6 (2) of the RTI Act which avers that the applicant seeking the information shall not be required to present any reasons for doing so.
Further, the Appellate Authority also imposed a walloping fine of ? 10,000 on the applicant. Over and above, the public authority revealed information such as the name, address and contact details of the applicant to the local newspaper to oblige as a deterrent, which is not only a violation of the right to privacy but also constructs bigoted intimidation upon the RTI applicants from engaging in "procedural remedies" when denied public information under the RTI Act.
Is imposing fine on RTI applicants illegal?
In the said case, the Appellate Authority imposed a fine of ?10,000 on the appellant as a deterrence but it is imperative to note that there is no such provision in the RTI Act or the Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules 20056, that authorises a public authority to impose fines or costs on an applicant. The process of filing an RTI application is not analogous to a usual court hearing. Furthermore, the appellate authority lacks the capacity to levy fines
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT
The landmark cases which have established the jurisprudence of the Right to Information are as follows:
- People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India7 - The Supreme Court expanded the Right to Information as to know about the electoral candidates as the right of the voters.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain8 - In this case the Supreme Court reiterated the precedence of the citizens over the government as they themselves elect the government and hence have the right to know about how the government functions, serves and implements the legislations.
- P. Gupta v. Union of India9 - The Supreme Court recognised the Right to Information as a sub-right of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression by further narrowing the ambit of protecting government documents from disclosure to the public.
With respect to the Story of Intimidation in Gujarat where the RTI application was initially rejected by the Public Information Officer asserting that the information enquired (that is the Cause List) was not ruminated to be "an information on record or public information", it is pertinent to refer to Manish Khanna v. High Court of Delhi11, a Central Information Commission case, where the Joint Registrar and PIO held that records such as the Cause List which are however only temporarily maintained come within the purview of "Record" as per the Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act which defines "information" and hence would include information that is transitory as well which the applicant is allowed to access for any given period of time rationing that such information is in control of the public authority/officials.
Advanced by the insolence of the judiciary and denial of information sought in the legitimate public interest, the aggrieved appellant approached the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) file a complaint under Section 18 (1) (f) of the RTI Act. The GIC then issued certain instructions to the Appellate Authority of Himmat Nagar but the authority did not reply to the said instructions within the stipulated time frame. In addition to the pending complaint with GIC, the appellate authority unfairly deducted the amount without any prior notice to the appellant.
How does this Story of Intimidation in Gujarat weakens the Act of RTI?
Even after precedents, strong jurisprudence, movement by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and formation of the National Campaign on People's Right to Information (NCPRI), illegalities and indicative intimidation still exists in the implementation of the RTI Act.
Nonetheless, the RTI Act has ensued to be powerless or deteriorated in its effective implementation for the following reasons:
- Narrow interpretation by the Public Information Officers and Subordinate Courts,
- Exorbitant delay in inducting for the subsequent vacancies, 12
- Irrational construal given by the Courts for classifying Information enquired as inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act,
- Arbitrary denial of information with consequent aggravation of the appellant,
- The Amendment Act of 2019 which certainly tampered the independent legislative spirit of the RTI Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
