 |
When did the Right to Information Act, 2005 come into force? |
|
| The Right to Information Act came into force fully on the 12th October, 2005 (120th day of its enactment i.e., 15th June, 2005). Some provisions came into force with immediate effect viz. obligations of public authorities [Section 4(1)], designation of Public Information Officers and Assistant Public Information Officers [Sections 5(1) and 5(2)], constitution of Central Information Commission [Sections12 and 13], constitution of State Information Commission [Sections 15 and 16], non-applicability of the Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations [Section 24] and power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act [Sections 27 and 28]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are "file notings' included in the definition of Information? |
|
| Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act defines 'information’ which includes ‘record'. Section 2(i) (a) states that a 'record' includes any document, manuscript and file. The operative definition of a 'file' is given in the Manual of Office Procedure prepared by the Central Secretariat, Government of India. The definition of 'file' in the Manual includes 'notes' and 'appendices to notes'.
In CIC Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, the CIC held that “file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure”. Thus, file notings can be disclosed under the Act. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can Government officers get access to Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) under the RTI Act? |
|
| As per decision No.18/IC (A)/2006 dt.28.03.2006, the CIC held that “the assessment reports by superior officers are personal and confidential information and therefore exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act”.
In the case stated above, the Central Information Commission upheld the public authority’s (Indian Oil Corporation’s) decision that ‘Annual Performance Appraisal Reports’ cannot be shared as they are confidential in nature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will not the publication of the 17 manuals mentioned under Section 4(1) (b) be very difficult and burdensome? |
|
| The requirement to publish 'manuals' reflects the objectives of Section 4 (1) (b) for proactive disclosure on part of every public authority, which is simply to publish and disseminate key information routinely, in a manner and form which is easily accessible and understood by the public [Sections 4(3) and 4(4) of the RTI Act specifically require this].
The 17 subsections of Section 4(1)(b) are 17 categories of information that a public authority is required to prepare and disseminate proactively through handbooks, notice boards, print and electronic media etc.
Most of the information required to be published proactively under this section may already be available within the public authority albeit in a scattered manner. These will need to be collected and collated to fulfill the requirement of Section 4(1) (b). Several officials are pleased with Section 4(1) (b) as it will
help them streamline their own recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting procedures. Once the information is compiled and published in a suitable, format it will be easy to update it.
Furthermore, not every public authority may be required to collate information under all categories of Section 4(1) (b). For example, the Finance Department in a State may not be issuing any permits or concessions. As it does not perform such functions the Finance Department will not be held at fault for not including this category of information in its Public Information Directory.
The CIC has, in one of its letters (dt. 10.05.2006) to all the Ministries / Departments, stated that “it is in the interest of the public authorities to make available all the 17 manuals to the citizens, which is likely to reduce the volume of requests for information under the RTI Act”.
If appropriate management information systems are developed and maintained by departments using information and communication technologies, the preparation of the information to be published annually, at different levels can be a simple affair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What will be the penalty if a public authority/department is not able to meet the deadline for proactive disclosure (120 days)? |
|
| It is advisable to publish as much information as possible under Section 4(1) (b) within the deadline and give it wide media publicity so that people know that the public authority/department is earnest about implementing the law. Any person can make complaint to the relevant Information Commission under Section 18 (1) (f) of the Act and the Commission may even require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.
It must be noted that the Information Commission has the power under Section 19(8) (a) (vi) to receive from a public authority an annual compliance report in relation to Section 4 (1)(b). This reporting mechanism will technically make the public authority answerable to the Information Commission for all acts of commission and omission in relation to proactive disclosure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible that some elements may misuse this law and use the information to blackmail/threaten officers? |
|
| The fact that the Act requires, making as much information as possible, available with the public authorities in the public domain may actually prevent blackmail to honest and sincere officers. If information is divided into two types, namely ‘open to disclosure’ and ‘not open to disclosure’, that which is not disclosed must be based only on the exemptions stipulated under the Act. Thus, the question of blackmail or threatening may not arise. As far as possible, information must be made public so as to reduce any possibility of blackmail. An honest and sincere officer need not fear blackmail at all. The strict adherence to the law would facilitate smooth functioning of such officers as they will be protected by law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) an assistant to the Public Information Officer (PIO)? |
|
| No, the APIO is not an assistant to the PIO. A Central / State APIO (as the case may be) may be designated at the sub-district or sub-divisional level where a public authority may not have an office or administrative unit [Section 5(2)].
Designation of APIOs is particularly useful for Departments of the Government of India which rarely have offices below the district level. However, it has been decided that the CAPIOs of Department of Posts will also act as CAPIOs for other Central Government Public Authorities, which do not have an office / or an administrative unit operative at the sub-district / sub-divisional level.
These CAPIOs (of the Department of Posts) will receive requests on behalf of the Central Government public authorities, and forward them to the CPIOs concerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a PIO has touring duties as well, then he will not be physically present to receive application in the office. Will his absence amount to refusal to accept information request? |
|
| The best solution for such situations is for the public authority concerned to designate another official within the same public authority (to act as PIO) and to receive applications. The duty of this PIO in maintaining the PIO’s register will be the same. This will ensure that citizens' applications are always received to suit their convenience and prompt action is taken on the same.
Incidentally, a particular public authority may appoint multiple numbers of PIOs such that each PIO is designated for a specific area of the organization’s functioning. Yet, if an applicant approaches any PIO, he/she cannot refuse to accept the application on the ground that it does not belong to his/her jurisdiction.
Accepting the application, the PIO has to seek the requested information from the officer/s in control of the requested information (who may be another PIO, but for the purpose of dealing with this application, he/she becomes an ‘Other Officer’ – in control of the requested information). He / she cannot direct the applicant to take his / her application to the other PIO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should BPL applicants be charged for being provided the requested information? |
|
| Persons belonging to the ‘Below Poverty Line’ category cannot be charged any fees / charges at all. The form of access can be decided by the PIO concerned, subject to the provision of the Act that information shall be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would ‘disproportionately’ divert the resources of the public authority. |
|
|
|
|
If the applicant does not pay the additional fees towards cost of providing information within the 30 days deadline will the PIO be penalized for failing to provide information to the applicant? |
|
| No, the PIO will not invite any penalty in such cases. The 30-day clock stops ticking from the date of dispatching the intimation for further fees issued by the PIO and restarts on the date on which the applicant pays the additional fee [Sections 7(3)(a) & 7(3)(b)].
For example, if the PIO dispatches the intimation letter on the 5th day from the date of receipt of the complete application only 5 days would have elapsed from the 30 days limit. The clock will restart on the date on which the applicant pays the ‘further fees’. The PIO will have to provide the information within 25 days from the date of payment of such further fees. If the applicant chooses to seek a review of the additional fee from the appellate authority or the SIC/CIC the period taken for giving a decision on this matter (if it is decided that no further payment is needed) or for actual payment of further fees (if it is decided that further fees would need to be paid), will not be included in the 30 day limit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if existing departmental manuals prevent disclosure of information to the people? |
|
| All such manuals were drawn up before the RTI Act came into force. These manuals will have to be reviewed in the light of the new law and all procedures for denying access to information will have to be done away with unless they relate to the exempt categories of information. Even in the case of exempt information, the manuals should be designed in a way so as to facilitate complete or partial access in public interest. All new departmental manuals likely to be drawn up in future must conform to the new regime of transparency set up under the RTI Act, 2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the process for taking a decision on granting partial access to a record? Who is the authority to make this decision within a public authority? |
|
| Section 10(2)(b) of the RTI Act makes it clear that the PIO is the deciding authority for granting partial access to records that may contain exempted information. However, when partial information is disclosed the PIO needs to provide valid reasons for the decision. He also needs to mention his name and designation as the decision maker and the applicant’s right with respect to the review of the decision, including the particulars of the AO, time limit, process etc.
Only that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempted from disclosure and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempted information, may be provided. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will a PIO be penalized if the superior officer orders him not to release information to the requester? |
|
| It needs to be mentioned here that the PIO must note that it is not necessary on his / her part to seek the permission / approval of a superior officer of the public authority concerned for providing information under his / her control. The Act is clear about the fact that the PIO is an independent authority under the law and no approval is required from any superior official to release the requested information.
If a PIO acts upon any order of his/her superior and subsequently rejects requests fully / partially, he/she is liable to be penalized under the Act.
In case the information sought for is not available with a PIO, he/she can take the assistance of any other officer including asking for information under that officer’s control and such officer will be treated as a PIO for the purpose of the Act and its penal provisions.
In the event a PIO seeks information from another official for providing information, his/her communication and receipt of information (to and from the other official) should be put down in writing and a proper record of the same should be maintained. This will be helpful, in the defense of the PIO concerned, should the information, turn out to be misleading or wrong, and an appeal is made against the PIO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is “Public Interest”? |
|
| In the Indian context, and especially in the context of the RTI Act, 2005, a significant judgment of the Supreme Court of India can be taken note of in understanding the term “public interest.
In S. P. Gupta v President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati, in referring to public interest, maintained:
Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, diffused rights and interests vindicate public interest [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
In State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat others AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212, the Apex Court held the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide import covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy].
One of the decisions of the Central Information Commission also throws some light on this term. Public interest includes disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability [in the working of a public authority] (Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00046, dt. 02.05.2006). |
|
|
|
|
What is the jurisdiction of courts? |
|
| Lower Courts are barred from entertaining suits, applications or other proceeding against any order made under this Act [Section 23]. However, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution respectively remain unaffected.
For a more comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the intricacies of the RTI Act, it is suggested that www.cic.gov.in may be referred to. |
|
|
|