Right to Information

PART A I DIRECTIONS OF SUPREME COURT

– Fee For RTI Application Should Not Exceed Rs.50/, Rs. 5/- Per Page, Motive Need Not Be Disclosed

The Supreme Court on March 20, 2018 capped the fee charged by high courts for responding to queries filed under the RTI Act at Rs. 50 per application, bringing cheers to activists seeking information under the transparency law.

The bench comprising Justices A. K. Goel, R. F. Nariman and U. U. Lalit also asked the high courts not to force applicants to disclose the reason for seeking information under the Right to Information law.

On the fee: “We are of the view that, as a normal Rule, the charge for the application should not be more than Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be more than Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt with differently. This will not debar revision in future, if the situation so demands.”

On disclosure of motive: With regard to the requirement of disclosure of motive for seeking information, the Court ruled, “No motive needs to be disclosed in view of the scheme of the Act.

On CJ’s permission for disclosure of information: The Court noted that the requirement of seeking permission of the Chief Justice or the concerned Judge for disclosure of information “will be only in respect of information which is exempted under the Scheme of Act.”

On transfer of application to another public authority: The Court opined that while normally the public authority should transfer the application to another public authority if the information is not available, the mandate may not apply “where the public authority dealing with the application is not aware as to which other authority will be the appropriate authority”.

On disclosure of information on matters pending adjudication: With regard to the Rules debarring disclosure of information on matters pending adjudication, the Court clarified that “the same may be read consistent with Section 8 of the Act, more particularly sub-section (1) in Clause (J) thereof, bench passed the order on a batch of petitions challenging the RTI rules of various high courts, and other authorities like the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, which imposed exorbitant fees for application and photocopying.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, the counsel for NGO Common Cause, which was one of the petitioners, said exorbitant fee was charged to disincentivise the general public from seeking information. He also said the fee should not act as a deterrent for information seekers.

The petition filed by the NGO claimed that the Central Information Commission had repeatedly asked the Allahabad High Court to modify its RTI rules, but its pleas were ignored.

The Allahabad High Court was charging Rs. 500 for a reply under the RTI Act, the petition claimed.

A similar plea was filed against the Chhattisgarh High Court which had dismissed a petition of an applicant Dinesh Kumar Soni, and imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on him for seeking information.

In his petition, Soni had challenged the Rule 5 and Rule 6(1) of the Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Right to Information (Regulation of fees and costs) Rules 2011, which require that a person making an application u/s. 6(1) of the RTI Act was required to pay Rs. 300.

(Source: http://www.livelaw.in/fee-rti-application-not-exceed-rs-50-rs-5-per-pages-motive-need-not-disclosed-read-sc-directions-read-order/)

PART B RTI ACT, 2005

– India’s Right to Information in a mess

Over the years, the pendency of cases under Right to Information (RTI) Act has shown an upward trend with close to two lakh pending second appeal and complaint cases been reported under the Act across the country.

According to the latest report “State of Information Commissions and the Use of RTI Laws in India (Rapid Review 4.0)” by Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), a New Delhi-based NGO, there were 1.93 lakh pending second appeal and complaint cases in 19 Information Commissions at the beginning of this year as compared to 1.10 lakh cases pending across 14 Information Commissions in 2015. The report based on annual reports and websites of Information Commissions was released at the Open Consultation on the Future of RTI: Challenges and Opportunities held in New Delhi in the second week of March.

Maharashtra (41,537 cases), Uttar Pradesh (40,248), Karnataka (29,291), Central Information Commission (23,989) and Kerala (14,253) were the top five Information Commissions that accounted for 77 percent of the overall pendency. Pendency in Bihar, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu among others was not publicly known while Mizoram State Information Commission (SIC) received and decided only one appeal case in 2016-17, said the report, adding that SICs of Tripura, Nagaland and Meghalaya had no pendency at all. The Central Information Commission and nine SICs (Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Odisha, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh) displayed updated case pendency data on their websites.

Referring to RTI applications, the report said that around 24.33 lakh RTI applications were filed across the Central and 14 state governments between 2015-17. The report mentioned that it was not possible to get accurate figures in the absence of annual reports from several Information Commissions. By a process of extrapolation it may be conservatively estimated that up to 50 lakh RTI applications would have been submitted by citizens during the same period, the report added.

About 24.77 lakh RTI applications were reported in 2015 and it was based on data available for the years 2012-14 (where data was taken for the latest year for which an annual report was available). The figure for 2015-17 appeared to be a little less but that might be due to the absence of figures from several jurisdictions where RTI was used more prolifically, added the report. Furthermore, around 2.14 crore RTI applications were filed across the country since October, 2005, as per the data published in the annual reports of Information Commissions accessible on their websites, the report said, adding that if data was published by all Information Commissions the figure might have touched 3 to 3.5 crores. Less than 0.5 percent of the population seemed to have used RTI since its operationalisation, it further added.

Despite the absence of their latest annual reports, the Central Government (57.43 lakhs) and the state governments of Maharashtra (54.95 lakhs) and Karnataka (20.73 lakhs million) continue to top the list of jurisdictions receiving the most number of information requests. Gujarat (9.86 lakhs) recorded more RTI applications than neighbouring Rajasthan (8.55 lakhs) where the demand for an RTI law emerged from the grassroots. Despite having much lower levels of literacy, Chhattisgarh (6.02 lakh) logged more RTI applications than 100 percent literate Kerala (5.73 lakhs). Despite being small states, Himachal Pradesh (4.24 lakhs), Punjab (3.60 lakhs) and Haryana (3.32 lakhs) registered more RTI applications each than the geographically bigger state of Odisha (2.85 lakhs). Manipur recorded the lowest figures for RTI use at 1,425 information requests between 2005-2017. The SIC did not publish any annual report between 2005 and 2011 and is yet to release the report for 2016-17.

While the Central government, Andhra Pradesh (undivided), Assam, Goa, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala and Uttarakhand have recorded an uninterrupted trend of increase in the number of RTI applications received, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Sikkim, Nagaland and Tripura have reported a decline in the number of RTI applications received in recent years and the reasons for the drop in numbers, according to the report, requires urgent probing. Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Meghalaya, Gujarat, Mizoram, Odisha and West Bengal have recorded a mixed trend where the RTI application figures have fluctuated over the years. After seesawing in the initial years, Arunachal Pradesh has reported a more than 82 percent decline in the number of RTI applications received in 2015 against the peak reached in 2014. Mizoram also showed a declining trend of 23 percent in 2016-17 after the peak scaled during the previous year. West Bengal’s figures rose and dipped to less than 62 percent of the peak reached in 2010 but a rising trend was reported in 2015.

Referring to headless and non-existent SICs, the report highlighted that there was no State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) in Gujarat since mid-January 2018. While Maharashtra SIC was headed by an acting SCIC since June 2017, there was no Information Commission in Andhra Pradesh (after Telangana was carved out in June 2014). The State government had assured the Hyderabad High Court that it would soon set up an SIC. More than 25 percent (109) of 146 posts in the Information Commissions were lying vacant. Against 142 posts created in 2015, 111 Information Commissioners (including Chief Information Commissioners) were working across the country. 47 percent of the serving Chief Information Commissioners and ICs were situated in seven states: Haryana (11), Karnataka, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh (9 each), Central Information Commission, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu (7 each). Six of these Commissions were saddled with 72 percent of the pending appeals and complaints across the country.

The report further referred that 90 percent of the Information Commissions were headed by retired civil servants and more than 43 percent of the Information Commissioners were from civil services background. This is the trend despite the Supreme Court’s directive in 2013 to identify candidates in other fields of specialisation mentioned in the RTI Act for appointment, argued the report. The report further mentioned that only 8.25 percent of the serving SCICs and ICs were women. Only 10 percent (8 out of 79) of the Information Commissioners serving across the country were women. Three of these women ICs were retired IAS officers while two were advocates and two had a background in social service and education. One woman IC in Punjab had a background in medicine.There were nine women ICs in 2015. The report said that the websites of SICs of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar could not be detected on any internet browser and the SICs of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh had not published any annual report so far. Jharkhand and Kerala SICs each had six pending annual reports and Punjab had five while Andhra Pradesh had four pending reports.

(Source: http://www.milligazette.com/news/16188-india-s-right-to-information-in-a-mess)

PART C INFORMATION ON & AROUND

– Focus On “Act Rightly” As Much As Right To Information Act, Says PM Modi

Twelve years after it was set up under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission has a new address — a five-storey environment friendly building in south Delhi, fitted with information technology and video conference facilities. Earlier, the highest appellate authority for RTI complaints used to function from two rented accommodations.

“The greatest asset of a democracy is an empowered citizen. Over the last 3.5 years we have created the right environment that nurtures informed and empowered individuals,” said Prime Minister Narendra Modi who inaugurated the new premises.

At a time when activists have accused the government of holding back information, PM Modi said like the RTI Act, serious attention should be paid to “Act Rightly”.

“Many times it has been seen that some people misuse the rights given to the public for personal gains. The burden of such wrong attempts is borne by the system”.

Activists say the government is yet to walk the talk on transparency, and anti-corruption laws await proper implementation.

A Lokpal is yet to be appointed, four years after the law was put in place. The chief information commissioner was appointed by the present government after activists went to court. Of the 11 posts of information commissioner, four are vacant and four more retire this year.

(Source:https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/focus-on-act-rightly-as-much-as-right-to-information-act-says-pm-modi-1821017)

u Ex-corporators seek right to pursue RTI

Eight former corporators of the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) have filed a criminal writ petition in the Bombay high court seeking quashing of complaints registered against them by the Thane police commissioner at the behest of the corporation and its commissioner. The corporators have alleged that the complaint lodged against them was aimed at discouraging them from seeking information under Right To Information (RTI) Act about unauthorised and illegal construction being carried on in the municipal limits of the corporation. 

According to the petition filed by Sanjay Ghadigaonkar and seven others, all of whom were former corporators in TMC, a complaint was lodged against them by the Thane police as they had been seeking information under RTI. The petition has alleged that they had been discouraged by the corporation from seeking the information, but when it did not deter them, the police complaints were lodged. The complaint has alleged that the corporators were misusing the RTI Act for vested interests.

The petition also points to the fact that in the recent session of the Vidhan Sabha, the chief minister Devendra Fadnavis had clarified that there was no restriction on anyone from seeking information under RTI and they cannot be prosecuted for seeking the information, but the corporation had not heeded the same but had lodged complaints with the police against them.

The petition while seeking an early hearing has also prayed for restraining orders against the police from taking any action against them as well as quashing of the complaints. The petition is expected to come up for hearing in due course.

RTI shows Left leader’s murderer received parole every month for 3 yrs.

A Right To Information (RTI) reply has revealed that CPI(M) leader and murder convict P.K. Kunhanandan was given 15 days parole every month since 2015.

Kunhanandan, one of the convicts in the murder case of slain leader T.P. Chandrasekharan, is serving a life-term for the same.

The reply, sought by slain leader’s wife K. K. Rema, also stated that barring two months (October and November 2017), the convict had got parole repeatedly from 2015 to 2018.

Chandrasekharan, a local leader of CPI (M) at Onchiyam in Kozhikode district, left the party in 2009 to form a new one, Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP); however, his political journey was cut short, as he was brutally murdered on May 4, 2012, after his party won considerable number of seats in a local body elections.

Fifteen CPI (M) workers were found guilty in the case.

Rema is now reportedly considering legal action against the state government.

(Source:http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/kerala-rti-shows-left-leader-s-murderer-received-parole-every-month-for-3-yrs-118031900030_1.html)

– RTI being strangled due to Maha’s neglect: Former CIC Gandhi

Former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi today said that the Right to Information Act was being “strangled” due to the neglect of the state government.

Gandhi has written a letter to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis asking him to fill the vacancies in the Information Commission in the state.

“RTI is slowly being strangled in Maharashtra by not appointing information commissioners. In Maharashtra, there is vacancy of one Chief Information Commissioner and three commissioners. These are not being filled despite repeated reminders,” Gandhi stated in his letter to Fadnavis.

Gandhi said that the pendency at all the commissions was now alarming and it was in turn killing the objective of the Act which was transparency.

Sharing the figures of 31,474 pending cases in four regions, Gandhi said, “Nashik region has 9,931 pending cases, Pune has 8,647 cases, Amravati 8,026 cases and Mumbai(HQ) has 4,870 cases pending. These cases are languishing for the want of information commissioners.”

His letter stated that it was a serious matter and needed immediate attention and claimed that failure to do so would allow the state to “succeed” in making the RTI Act “redundant”.

“It will continue as a haven for rewarding retired bureaucrats and other favourites. It will be an expense account with no benefit to its citizens,” Gandhi wrote.

He said that Maharashtra was one of the first states to enact the law when it came into effect in October, 2005 but the state was now “reeling from the worst levels of pendency in years”.

(Source:http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/rti-being-strangled-due-to-maha-s-neglect-former-cic-gandhi-118031900500_1.html)

– Agents of RTI justice, information commissions are its biggest bottleneck

A crippling staff shortage and vacancies in crucial positions at the central and state information commissions is severely undermining the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a study by NGOs Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and Centre for Equity Studies (CES) has found.

According to the study, ‘Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India’, which looked at 29 information commissions, including the central information commission (CIC), and is based on data gathered via 169 RTI pleas, the failure of the central and state governments to proactively put out information in the public domain is the second biggest bottleneck in the effective implementation of the Act.

The CIC and state information commissions (SICs) are almost all functioning much below their sanctioned strength. The CIC, for example, is four short of its sanctioned strength of 10 information commissioners. Of these, four are set to retire this year.

Also, the Maharashtra, Nagaland and Gujarat SICs are headless in the absence of a chief information commissioner. Kerala’s, meanwhile, has only one information commissioner, out of a sanctioned strength of five.

The information commissions serve the role of watchdogs in the implementation of the RTI Act, approached by petitioners when their pleas are either not accepted by a government agency, refused, or elicit inadequate information.

According to the report, in 2016, the number of appeals and complaints pending with 23 SICs stood at the “alarming figure of 1,81,852”, growing 9.5 per cent to 1,99,186 at the end of October 2017. The Mizoram and Sikkim SICs had zero pendency as of October 2017, while information wasn’t available for other states.

“The assessment found that several ICs were non-functional or functioning at reduced capacity, as the posts of commissioners, including that of the chief information commissioner, were vacant during the period under review,” said the study, which covered the period from January 2016 to October 2017.

According to the report, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim had spells where the SICs didn’t function at all, while the West Bengal SIC did not hear any complaints or appeals for nearly 12 months. Not surprisingly, the date of resolution for a complaint/appeal filed with West Bengal SIC in November 2017 was estimated at 43 years later by the NGOs (see graphic).

Estimated time required for disposal of an appeal/complaint filed on November 1, 2017.

In a situation of this kind, people have “no recourse to the independent appellate mechanism prescribed under the RTI Act”, the report pointed out.

“The transparency in public authorities completely diminishes. They have no fear or accountability when this happens,” said RTI activist Subhash Agrawal.

“The poorest of the poor use RTI for information regarding basic entitlements such as ration cards. If it takes 5 years to get a response then what is the point? Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and a founding member of the Satark Nagrik Sangathan. There are outliers, of course. The SICs for Mizoram and Sikkim disposed of appeals/complaints in less than a month.

The political side of it

State chief information commissioners, as is the case with the central chief information commissioner, are appointed by the government in consultation with the opposition. Agrawal said while not appointing chiefs was often a government bid to dilute institutions, delayed appointments resulted several times from a lack of coordination between the chief minister and the leader of the opposition. “Mayawati and Mulayam Singh didn’t see eye to eye, so it took a long time for the UP state commission to be set up,” he added.

“Not having a chief (information commissioner) is legally unsound. It is the commissioner who runs everything, while everyone else is supposed to support him,” said Habibullah.

When the last resort crumbles:

The multitude of vacancies is a factor, of course, but experts pointed out that it was the lack of transparency on the part of the central and state governments that forced people to file RTI pleas even for the most basic information.

“The government is not doing its job of suo motu disclosure u/s. 4(1)(B) of the RTI Act, under which it has to update information every 120 days,” said Wajahat Habibullah, the first chief information commissioner.

Agrawal said “more proactive disclosures by the government can cut the number of RTI pleas filed by 70%”.

The ‘inexplicable’ overnight drop

The report pointed out how the CIC stated in an RTI reply that the total number of appeals and complaints pending with it stood at 28,502 as on 31 December 2016. However, according to its website, only 364 cases were pending with it on 1 January 2017, it added, terming the fall “inexplicable”.

The returned complaints

Apart from the pendency, concerns have also been raised about the high number of appeals and complaints returned to petitioners, several for unspecified reasons, with many people wondering whether this was a ploy to project lower pendency rates.

“This is extremely problematic as people, especially the marginalised, reach the commissions after a great deal of hardship and a long wait,” said the report.

“The number is so high that I suspect cases were not rejected on solid grounds,” Habibullah added.

Bhardwaj said they had found instances where cases were wrongfully returned.

She added that when the commissions returned complaints, it “fails to perform its legal duty as a friend of the petitioner”. “Many people are unlettered but they do have the right to information,” she said.

The penalties, or the lack thereof

According to the RTI Act, the information commissions can impose penalties of up to Rs 25,000 against public information officers (PIOs) for violations of the RTI Act. However, according to the report, penalties were rare.

The report added: “Penalties were imposed in… only 4.1% of the cases where penalties were imposable!”

(Source:https://theprint.in/governance/agents-of-rti-justice-information-commissions-are-its-biggest-bottleneck/41229/)

– Govt Orders Voluntary Info Disclosure Under RTI

With most of the departments and authorities in the state yet to disclose voluntary information under Right to Information (RTI) Act, the government on Friday directed all the concerned officials to ensure the disclosures as per the transparency law within a week. 

“With a view to maintaining conformity with the provisions of Section 4 of J&K Right to Information Act, 2009, from time to time, instructions have been issued, impressing upon all the Administrative Secretaries, Heads of the Departments and Public Authorities of the State to ensure effective implementation of the provisions of Section 4 of the J&K RTI Act in letter and spirit by hosting all requisite information on the official websites and updating them periodically,” reads a circular issued by the government.

“However, it is being constantly observed that some of departments are not implementing the provisions of Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 and some of them have yet not created their departmental websites.”

The J&K State Information Commission has been persistently requesting for ensuring implementation of the provisions of the J&K Right to Information Act, it said.

“Therefore all such departments as have not so far created their own departmental websites are impressed upon to do so within a fortnight and host the requisite material on the websites under the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009, on regular basis. Further, all the Administrative Secretaries are enjoined upon to furnish the status on this account to the General Administration Department as well as State Information Commission within a week’s time positively.”

The CIC had shared details with the GAD about the status of different departments regarding creation of websites, disclosure u/s. 4 of the RTI Act, appointment of Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority.

The CIC has informed the GAD that many departments were not disclosing the information as per the Act.

The CIC has also highlighted that the domain name of GMC Jammu has expired on August 30 last year.

(Source:https://kashmirobserver.net/2018/local-news/govt-orders-voluntary-info-disclosure-under-rti-29164)

– Meghalaya RTI Activist, Who Went After Cement Firms, Found Murdered

A right-to-information activist who was working to expose alleged misuse of public funds in Meghalaya was found dead in the northeast state, police said on Tuesday.

Poipynhun Majaw had been filing applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to check alleged corruption in public projects in Meghalaya’s Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council.

His body was found near a bridge in Khliehriat, the district headquarters of East Jaintia Hills, 120 kilometres from state capital Shillong. He was also the president of Jaintia Youth Federation.

Police said he was last seen riding a motorcycle near the East Jaintia Hills deputy commissioner’s office on Monday night.

“A wrench was found next to the body. Preliminary inquest suggests the victim was hit on the head leading to his death,” senior police officer AR Mawthoh said.

Recently, using replies he got from the authorities under using the RTI route, he had alleged that cement firms have been mining in the area without permission from the council.

(Source:https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/meghalaya-rti-activist-who-went-after-cement-firms-found-murdered-1826488)

– RBI: SMA details exempted from disclosure under RTI

Contradicting its reply to an earlier right to information (RTI) query, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has recently said bank-wise information on special mention account (SMA) 1 and 2 is exempt from disclosure u/s. 8 (1) (a) & (d) of the RTI Act. While SMA 1 refers to loans where repayments are overdue between 31-60 days, SMA 2 loans are ones where principal or interest is overdue between 61-90 days. Although these are technically not non-performing assets (NPAs), but nonetheless indicate ‘incipient stress’. In April 2016, RBI had said in an RTI response that SMA 1 and 2 loans of all banks stood at Rs 6,24,119 crore at the end of December 2015, 9% higher than Rs 5,73,381 crore at the end of June 2015. It had further said while SBI’s SMA-2 accounts stood at Rs 60,228 crore, or 5.17% of its total advances, at PNB this exposure was approximately 6.31% of its total loan book or Rs 24,824 crore. RBI’s executive director and appellate authority Uma Shankar said on March 7, 2018, that there is no overriding public interest in the disclosure of credit information. She added that section 45E of the RBI Act, 1934, contains a specific bar against disclosure of credit information collected by the central bank. “Though section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, starts with a non-obstante clause, the interpretation given to that section by CIC is that it is not intended to override special enactments,” she said. She said SMA data is collected by RBI solely for disseminating the information to other banks having exposure to the accounts reported in SMA by banks.

(Source:http://www.financialexpress.com/industry/rbi-sma-details-exempted-from-disclosure-under-rti/1096387/)

RTI Clinic in April 2018: 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Saturday, i.e. 8^th, 15^th and 22^nd 11.00 to 13.00 at BCAS premises.