PEOPLE’S MONITORING OF THE RTI REGIME IN INDIA 2011-13:
In the last issue of BCAJ I had noted as under:
P.S. RTI Assessment and Advisory Group (RAAG) and Samya Center for Equity studies (SAMYA) have published in October 2014 the work titled “PEOPLE’S MONITORING OF THE RTI REGIME IN INDIA: 2011-13 running into 177 pages. Next issue, we will summarise the same. Look forward to it. Briefly looking into the contents of compilation, running into 177 pages of 11 chapters & 10 annexures, I plan to serialise it and cover 1 or 2 chapters in each issue.
This study is part of an ongoing series of studies on various aspects of the implementation of the RTI regime in India. The current study covers the period 2011-13.
Hereunder is the summary of the KEY FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS before I summarise the chapters.
A. Improving awareness: There is poor awareness about the RTI Act, worse in rural areas than in urban areas. In only 36% of the rural focus group discussions (FGDs) and 38% of urban FGDs, was there even one participant who had heard of the RTI Act in the state headquarters, and in Delhi, 61% of the respondents interviewed through street corner interviews said that they had heard about the RTI Act.
B. Gender concerns: The participation of women in the RTI process, especially as applicants, has been minimal, with a national average of 8%. Many reasons can be attributed for this gender imbalance, but there is no scientific understanding of why so few women file RTI applications. If RTI means of empowerment, then there should be a special focus on ensuring that women are aware of the RTI Act and willing and able to use it.
C. The rural-urban divide: Only 14% of the applicants were from rural areas, even though over 70% of India’s population lives in rural areas. Though the sample might have a bias in favour of urban areas, even after adjusting for such a bias, the proportion is too small. Awareness levels about the RTI also seem low in rural areas.
D. Grievance redress mechanism: 80% of respondents in rural FGDs, and 95% in urban FGDs, said that they wanted to use the RTI Act in order to seek redress of their grievances. Analysis of RTI applications showed that at least 16% of the applicants were seeking information that was aimed at getting action on a complaint, getting a response from a public authority, or getting redress for a grievance.
E. Ineffectual first appellate process: Except for first appeals filed with the central government or Delhi government, there is less than 4% chance of getting any information by filing a first appeal.
F. Threats to applicants: Applicants, especially from the weaker segments of society, are often intimidated, threatened and even physically attacked when they go to submit an RTI application, or as a consequence of their submitting such an application.
G. Reducing the need to file RTI applications: Certain public authorities, especially those with extensive public dealing (like municipalities, land and building departments, police departments, etc.) receive a disproportionate share of RTI applications compared to other public authorities. In some cases, there is resentment among PIOs as they have to deal with a large number of RTI applications in addition to their normal work.
H. Proactive disclosure: Despite a very strong provision for proactive (suo motu) disclosure u/s. 4 of the RTI Act, there is poor compliance by public authorities. This forces applicants to file applications for information that should be available to them proactively, and consequently creates extra work for themselves, for the concerned public authorities, and for information commissions. 65% of the PA premises inspected did not have a board with the required proactive disclosures and 59% did not have any publications or other material available in their office which the public could inspect in order to access the information that should be proactively available.
I. Record Management: One major constraint faced by PIOs in providing information in a timely manner is the poor state of record management in most public authorities.
J. Training of PIOs: Nearly 45% of the PIOs have not received any training on the RTI Act. In fact, the PIOs interviewed identified lack of training as their number one constraint. A much larger proportion of non-PIO civil servants, who have to provide information to the PIOs or function as first appellate authorities, have not been oriented and trained towards facilitating the right to information.
K. Delays and pendency: There are huge and growing delays in the disposal of cases in many of the information commissions, with pendency of cases growing every month. At the current levels of pendency and rate of disposal, an appeal filed today with the Madhya Pradesh SIC would be taken up for consideration only after 6 years, while the West Bengal SIC would come to it after nearly 17 years! The main reasons behind the delays seem to be the paucity of commissioners in some of the commissions and the low productivity of some of the other commissioners, mainly due to inadequate support. The additional fact that there is no legally prescribed time limit for disposing second appeals not only allows ICs to be indifferent about delays but also prevents appellants from approaching the high court.
L. Enforcing orders: Often, orders of information commissions are not heeded to by the concerned public authority and even penalties that are imposed are not recovered. Many commissions do not have workable methods of monitoring whether their orders have been complied with; leave alone for ensuring that they are complied with.
M. Imposing penalties: A very small proportion of the penalties imposable under the RTI Act (less than 3.7% on the basis of our current estimate) are actually imposed by commissions. Though further research needs to be done on this aspect, preliminary data suggests that there is a correlation between the number of penalties imposed and both the willingness of PIOs to make information available, and the number of appeals and complaints that land up with information commissions.
N. Practicing transparency: Unfortunately, many of the information commissions do not themselves follow the requirements of section 4 of the RTI act. Most of their websites are outdated with very sparse details and much of the required information missing.
O. Independence of commissions: Many information commissioners feel that their dependence on the government for budgets, sanctions and staff seriously undermines their independence and autonomy, and inhabits their functioning.
P. Composition of commissions: The composition of information commissions across the country has a bias towards retired government servants. It is desirable to have a more balanced composition so that diverse expertise is represented in the commission.
Q. Rationalising rules: All states and union territory governments (a total of 34), all the high courts (23) and legislative assemblies (29), the central government, the Supreme Court and both houses of Parliament have a right to make their own rules. This can result in 90 different sets of rules in the country. In addition, the 28 information commissions also have their own procedures, as formulated by the appropriate governments, resulting in a total of 118 sets of rules relating to the RTI in India! Consequently, an applicant is confronted with the often insurmountable problem of first finding out the relevant rules and then attempting to comply with the application form, identity proof, or mode of fee payment requirement, which differ from state to state and are often virtually impossible to comply with.
R. Monitoring and advisory body: The mechanisms for monitoring the implantation of the RTI Act, and for receiving and assimilating feedback, are almost non- existent.
S. Information publication scheme: There is an Information Publication Scheme provided for in the statute in Australia and later adopted by UK too. In this scheme the Information Commission asks each agency to publish its own information on its functioning. The Commission guides the agency and approves the publication scheme.
T. Political parties and the RTI: Nepal has included the functioning of a political party and only NGO with full/part government funding in the agencies whose information can be accessed.
U. Selecting information commissioners: Process of appointment of information commissioners is comparatively more participatory and open in Canada and Scotland. Both countries go through a series of approvals by the Parliament of candidates who are com- petitively short-listed. The transparent process helps in legitimising the position to a much greater degree than appointments that are seen to come through de- liberations of the Prime Minister or government alone.
V. Implementing IC orders: The orders of the Information Commission are binding on the agency in UK. If necessary, it can issue what are known as enforcement notices which, if not implanted, are treated as contempt of court for the purpose of punishment.
W. Accountability to Parliament: Information Commissions in Canada and UK submit detailed annual reports of their activities to the Parliament. This makes them accountable to the Parliament and also helps in making their activities transparent and available for public scrutiny.
Above are 23 Key Findings. On each finding, the publica- tion gives their recommendations, which are not reproduced here. If any reader desires to have them, a soft copy would be forwarded to him/her.
Report of The Committee To evolve Model Format for RTI Replies:
The Committee constituted vide DoPT O/M/No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 16th October, 2014 to evolve a model format for giving information under the RTI Act, held its meeting on 29th October, 2014 at 11:30 a.m. After ex- amining in detail the provisions of the RTI Act, the ex- isting generally followed by the CPIOs in replying to RTI applications, the Committee has made the following observations:
X. There is neither any provision in the RTI Act or RTI Rules for a model/standard format of RTI applica- tion nor any provision for a model/standard format for reply to the RTI applications.
II. Presently, neither any standard practice nor any standard format is being used by the CPIOs in reply to the RTI applications.
In view of the above observations, the Committee has made the following recommendations:
a) There should not be a model/standard format for reply to the RTI application, as there is no such provision in the RTI Act or the RTI rules.
b) Moreover, keeping in view that there is no standard format for RTI applications, there could not be a standard format for their reply.
c) However, the following points can be uniformly ad- opted by the CPIOs while replying to the RTI applications:
i. The name, designation, official telephone no. and email id of the CPIOs should be clearly mentioned.
ii. In case the information requested for is denied, rea- sons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
iii. In case the information pertains to other public author- ity and the application is transferred u/s. 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the ap- plication is transferred should be given.
iv. In the concluding Para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First appellate Authority will reply within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
v. The name, designation, address, official telephone no. and e-mail id of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned.
vi. Wherever the applicant has requested for certified copies of the documents or records, the CPIO should certify the documents or records by putting a seal of his name, designation and signing with date. Above the seal, the remarks that “documents/records pro- vided under the RTI Act” should be endorsed.
