Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) vide its circular No. 1-5-2016-IR dated 31.03.2017 has invited comments from public on draft-rules for Right-To-Information (RTI), to be notified under provisions of section 27 of RTI Act. But suggestions are invited through a circular put on DoPT website, rather than being published in prominent newspapers in a prominent manner that too giving a very little time to members of public just till 15.04.2017 to submit their suggestions. Initially suggestions were to be given only through e-mails with no proof of having submitted suggestions. But later through a communication dated 05.04.2017, hard copies of written submissions were also made acceptable.
Misconceptions have been there in regard to certain rules as being alleged to be new ones even though these were notified by earlier UPA government through a gazette-notification dated 31.07.2012. Newly drafted rules comprise of about 60-percent rules which already existed earlier. But most of the earlier and newly included rules require further modifications. Bitter fact remains that states and competent authorities have undue liberty to have their own rules, other than those framed by the centre, which also provide fixation of RTI fees under rules 27 and 28 of RTI Act, 2005. It has resulted several competent authorities and states having too high RTI fees of rupees 500 despite DoPT’s repeated advisories both in UPA and NDA regimes to state-governments and competent authorities in bringing uniformity at least in respect of RTI fees. Several state governments even have an additional fee for filing first or second appeals. Several High Courts like Delhi High Court had to bring down RTI fees to rupees fifty, which is even does not match RTI fees of rupees ten as fixed by DoPT. Interestingly High Courts like Supreme Court as public-authorities come under jurisdiction of Central Information Commission in respect of RTI petitions filed there. Significantly High Courts are even not following Supreme Court in respect of RTI fees where Supreme Court follows DoPT by having an RTI fees of rupees ten.
Appreciable draft-rule 15(iv): But will it stand legal scrutiny?
There has been an appreciable rule added as draft-rule number 15(iv) which allows a petitioner to request for converting a complaint-petition filed under section 18 of RTI Act in an appeal under section 19(3) of RTI Act during course of hearing. Such provision can save much of the time involved for all concerned if petitions at Information Commissions are filed both under sections 18 and 19(3) of the RTI Act for the same RTI petition. A petitioner not having filed petition under section 19(3) because of having already filed petition under section 18 with reply from Public information Commissioner coming late, will be much relieved. Presently they have to go through a cumbersome process of simultaneously filing complaint-petition under section 18 with Information Commissions, and first appeals under section 19(1) with First Appellate Authority at concerned public-authority and then approaching Information Commission again under section 19(3) in case of not being satisfied with order on first appeal.
This provision was of utmost importance in view of a Supreme Court verdict dated 12.12.2011 in SLP (C) Numbers 32768-32769/2010 wherein it was help that a request for converting complaint-petition filed under section (18) of RTI Act cannot be converted into an appeal filed under section 19(3) of RTI Act. But it is doubted that the suggested draft-rule 15(4) will stand legally in view of the said Supreme Court verdict dated 12.12.2011.
Draft-rule (3) contradictory in itself: Needs to be corrected
Draft-rule (3) which is exactly same as the existing rule (3) notified through gazette-notification dated 31.07.2012 for a liberal word-limit of 500 words (exclusive of words in annexures, addresses of Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant) was imposed in consultation with members of civil society when cases of extra-long RTI applications of 40-50- pages started emerging. But the second paragraph of the said rule (3) contradicts the first paragraph, leading to utter confusion causing unnecessary filing of first and second appeals. While first paragraph stipulates that “An application….shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words….”, the second paragraph contradicts through mention “Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains more than five hundred words”. As such second paragraph of draft-rule (3) needs to be deleted.
RTI fees should be rupees fifty inclusive of copying charges of first 20 copied pages
Fees prescribed under draft-rule 3 should be raised to rupees fifty with provision of providing first 20 copied pages free-of-cost inclusive of postal-charges as specified in draft-rule 4-g. It will avoid man-hours and postal-charges to both public-authorities and petitioners in demanding and remitting copying charges, and will impose a check on RTI petitions filed for fun or otherwise. Suggestion must not be seen as a blow to RTI Act, because such a provision will largely reduce pendency at Central Information Commission, and s[pent of resources of public-authorities. Even though suggestion will not monetarily affect the petitioner, yet it may be noted that in last more than a decade of RTI Act coming into force, various types of government-fees and services like cost of railway-platform-ticket has gone manifold. RTI Act already provides complete waiver of RTI fees and other charges for applicants Below-Poverty-Line (BPL). Making basic RTI fees as rupees fifty, will largely eliminate pendency at Central Information Commission also. Argument is given that there is a small percentage of 5-7 percent of such mischievous petitions reaching at CIC. But only very small percentage of total filed RTI applications reach at CIC. Bitter fact is that now-a-days majority of RTI applications received at public-authorities have no serious queries, resulting in improper handling of RTI applications filed with responsibility. Presently most commonly mode of payment of RTI fees is postal-order which costs Department of Posts heavy handling-charges of rupees 39.99 apart from cost incurred to other authorities like Reserve bank of India (RBI) and banks in clearing operations of postal-orders. It is better not completely waive of RTI fees rather than keeping it low at rupees fifty. Rather a consensus can be achieved by a meeting convened of all states and competent-authorities to have a consensus on uniform RTI fees of rupees fifty inclusive of copying charges of first twenty copied pages rather than some states and High Courts having RTI fees excessively high at rupees 500.
Post-free facility for RTI applications should be extended to all post-offices
RTI petitions addressed to central public-authorities should be accepted post-free at all about 160000 post offices in the country rather than just about 4500 as at present. It is not at all difficult because every small post-office on daily basis sends mail-articles received through registered or speed-post and cash to head post-office. This postal-bag can also carry post-free RTI applications addressed at central public-authorities
Check on misuse of BPL category by vested interests for free documents necessary
Draft-rule 5 should include restriction of number of free copied pages to be provided to person of BPL category to avoid misuse of provision by big contractors filing RTI petitions through casual labourers of BPL category to save costs on extra large quantity of copied documents.
RTI stamps as additional payment-mode for RTI fees and copying-charges
Mode of payment of RTI-fees in draft-rule 6 should include RTI stamps to be issued in denominations of rupees 2, 10 and 50 as per repeated CIC-verdicts to abolish enormous handling-charge of postal-orders costing rupees 39.99 to postal-department alone apart from clearing-operations. Even Central Chief Information Commissioner desired DoPT to get RTI stamps issued on lines of earlier radio-TV licence-fees stamps.
CIC-registry should be duty-bound to send copies of petitions to public-authorities
Draft-rules 8 and 13 require petitioners to send a copy of their petitions filed with CIC to concerned respondent public-authorities further requiring attaching proof of service while filing petitions at CIC. This is not proper, because public-authorities cannot practically trace copies of petitions filed with CIC when they receive notices for hearing at CIC. Best way is to continue with the practice of receiving extra copy/copies of petitions by CIC-registry while receiving any petition, and to send the extra copy so filed with the notice of hearing to concerned public-authority/authorities.
Dangerous draft-rule 12 needs to be abolished altogether
It is a matter of probe how and why this draft-rule 12 especially even the dangerous draft-rule 12 (2) was at all included in the circulated draft-rules. DoPT should come clean on sue-motto posting file-notings/correspondence on drafting draft-rules through circular dated 31.03.2017 on website to expose deliberate attempt to dilute RTI Act through such dangerous provision through draft-rule (12). Even otherwise, every petitioner had a right to withdraw petition before Central Information Commission without adding this extra rule. Addition of draft-rule (12) will rather provide dangerous tool to public-authorities or other vested interests to pressurise RTI applicants to withdraw RTI petitions pending before Central Information Commission.
Central Information Commission once in its meeting of all Commissioners took a very practical decision of making it compulsory for every public-authority to put RTI response to queries of a murdered RTI petitioner, whose petition would have been pending before Central Information Commission. Draft-rule (2) rather reverses the said decision. Proceedings pending before the Commission should rather be done on priority rather than these being abated in case of death of some petitioner. As earlier decided by CIC, RTI responses to queries of the deceased or murdered petitioner should be put on websites of both the concerned public-authority and CIC.
Non-compliance of CIC-verdicts
Draft-rule 16 should be totally changed to have a provision of interim CIC-order giving directions to public-authority, followed by a final hearing-date for ensuring compliance of CIC-verdict after three months. Post-lunch sessions on last working-day of every week can be reserved for hearings to ensure compliance of CIC-verdicts. Penalty-proceedings should be decided during normal hearings with necessary changes incorporated in notices for hearings.
Chief Information Commissioner may not have power to transfer case
Draft-rule 17 needs to be looked into very cautiously because it gives undue power to Chief Central Information Commissioner for sue-motto fixing appeal/complaint/non-complianc
Written submissions by responding public-authority be a must 15 days before hearing
Draft-rule 19 should make it compulsory for a public-authority to submit written explanation at least 15 days in advance with copy to petitioner. Most of the times, public-authorities provide satisfactory response with added responsibility once the matter reaches CIC.
Hearing-notices by CIC must reach at least 30 days in advance
Draft-rule 20 should make it compulsory for CIC to despatch hearing-notice at least 30 days before the hearing-date. Presently at times, CIC-notices reach to parties just on hearing-dates.
ID proof should be compulsory with every RTI petition filed with a public-authority
New rule should be added for making it compulsory to file ID proof with every RTI petition filed with a public-authority. It is absurd to suggest that such a provision will ‘disclose’ identity of an RTI applicant, because it is already disclosed in an RTI application. Idea is only to avoid fake RTI applications filed in name of others or non-existing persons. Persons desiring to remain anonymous can file RTI petitions through Post-Box numbers.
Penal-provision for Appellate Authorities & Competent Authorities
Provision for providing penalties for defaulting Appellate Authorities should be added in section 20 which presently spells out penal-provision only for Public Information Officers. Provision for penalising Competent Authorities for not complying with provisions of providing necessary information as mandatory under various sub-sections of section 4 of RTI Act should also be there. It should be mandatory (not discretionary) not only for Information Commissioners but even for first Appellate Authority to impose penalty on CPIOs not responding within 30 days. Copying-charges waived under section 7(6) of RTI Act due to late response from CPIO, should be deducted from salary of CPIO instead of being suffered by the public-authority.
Appointing Information Commissioners
Chief Information Commissioner should be appointed from amongst senior-most Information Commissioners turn-by-turn for one year each like is adopted for appointing Dean at Faculty of Management (Delhi University). System will avoid vacuum at post of Chief Information Commissioner in case of unexpected vacancy apart from existing Information Commissioners feeling humiliated of being bypassed through appointment of an outsider at post of Chief Information Commissioner. Newer ideas will emerge from various Information Commissioners getting opportunity to head the Commission turn-by-turn each for a year. Information Commissions should always work at full strength. Government should complete selection-process of Information Commissioners well in advance before retirement of any of the Information Commissioner like is done in case of Election Commissioners.
Bring more bodies under RTI Act including from private-sector
Considering many bodies considered through CIC-verdicts as being covered under RTI Act approaching High Courts against the CIC-verdicts, RTI Act should be suitably amended to include some specified categories including like Multi-State-Cooperative-Societ
Considering ever-increasing domination of various aspects of day-to-day life of commoners like in case of telecommunications, banking etc with so much malpractices and irregularities in the system, it is utmost necessary in larger national and public interest to bring private-sector above some specified annual turn-over to be covered by RTI Act.