Right To Information

•  Information is covered u/s.8(1)(d), (e), (g), (h) or (j) of the RTI Act.

• Permanent Account Number (PAN) is a statutory number, which functions as a
  unique identification of each taxpayer. Making PAN public can result in misuse
  of this information by other persons and could compromise the privacy of the
  financial transactions linked with PAN.

• Information relates to third parties who have objected to the disclosure of
  this information.

•  Information is subject to confidentiality u/s.138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

• That she herself and her organisation are completely non-political and non-partisan. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which she represents, works for improving the governance, democratic, political and electoral processes in the country. Earlier also they have filed Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the Delhi High Court, which resulted in the landmark and historic judgment of the Supreme Court (March 13, 2003) making it mandatory for candidates contesting elections to State Assemblies and Parliament to disclose their criminal antecedents, if any; assets and liabilities; and educational qualifications, by way of a sworn affidavit to be filed as an essential part of the nomination form.

• It is also pertinent to refer to the recommendations of the Law Commission of India contained in their 170th Report on ‘Reform of the Electoral Laws’. An extract from para 3.1.2.1 of which is reproduced below :

“It is therefore, necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside.”

The appellant also submitted that where plural remedies occur under different enactments, even if inconsistent, they empower a person to choose one, (Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Unions Ltd. v. Uma Shankar Saran, AIR 1993 SC 1222). In the alternative, assuming without prejudice that there is no inconsistency or discordance between the provisions of the RTI Act and S. 138 of the Income-tax Act and both can be given effect to, then the existence of an alternative remedy u/s.138 of the Income-tax Act or any other Act would not bar a citizen from seeking information tinder the RTI Act, 2005 and to accept any other interpretation would mean to render the RTI to a nullity. The RTI Act is an encompassing piece of iegislation and S. 2(f) of the said Act specifically defines ‘information’ to include If information relating to a private body which can be assessed by a public authority under any other lawfor the time being in force. ” The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on the other hand is a specific and special piece of legislation directed towards providing for access to information under the control of public authorities.
 
The Commission framed the following issue for determination:

Whether income tax returns along with its assessment order and PAN of various political parties can be considered to be exempted u/s.8(1)(d), (e), (g), (h) and (j) of the RTI Act and as to whether such information can be disclosed in larger public interest?

In its decision covering 22 paras and running into nearly 8 pages, the Commission, ruled on the above issue. Some paras in full and others in part are reproduced hereunder:

• Political parties are a unique institution of the modern Constitutional State. These are essentially civil society institutions and are, therefore, non-governmental. Their uniqueness lies in the fact that in spite of being non-governmental, political parties come to wield directly or indirectly influence exercise of governmental power. It is this link between State power and political parties that has assumed critical significance in the context of the Right of Information Act which has brought into focus the imperatives of transparency in the functioning of State institu-tions. It would be facetious to argue that transparency is good for all State organs, but not so good for the political parties, which control the most important of those organs. For example, it will be a fallacy to hold that transparency is good for the bureaucracy, but not good enough for the political parties, which control those bureauracies through political executives.

• In modern day context, transparency and accountability are spoken of together as twins. Higher the levels of transparency, greater the accountability. This link between transparency and accountability is sharply highlighted in the Preamble to the RTI Act.

• The RTI Act aims at expanding accountability through transparency at all levels of governance. It is difficult to be persuaded by the argument that though political parties control the political executives who are their appointees these parties should be allowed to be insulated from the demands of transparency.

• The question that additionally needs to be asked is whether the avowed purpose of the RTI Act, as set out in its Preamble to combat corruption is being achieved by allowing the finances of the political parties to remain beyond public scrutiny or even public view. There is now widespread concern about a hyphenated relationship developing between party finance and political corruption. The lack of openness and transparency in party finance is matched by the lack of adequate State regulation of such finance.

• The scheme of the Act makes it abundantly clear that disclosure of information to a citizen is the norm and non-disclosure by a public authority an exception and it necessitates justification for any decision not to disclose information.

• Democratic States, the world over, are engaged in finding solutions to the problem of transparency in political funding. Several methodologies are being tried such as State subsidy for parties, regulation of funding, voluntary disclosure by donors at least large donors and so on. The German Basic Law contains very elaborate provisions regarding political funding. S. 21 of the Basic Law enjoins that political parties shall publicly account for the sources and the use of their funds and for their assets. The German Federal Constitutional Court has in its decisions strengthened the trend towards transparency in the functioning of political parties. It follows that transparency in funding of political parties in a democracy is the norm and, must be promoted in public interest. In the present case that promotion is being effected through the disclosure of the Income-tax returns of the political parties.

Based on the above, the Commission  ruled as under:

The Commission directs that the public authorities holding such information shall, within a period of six weeks of this order, provide the following information to the appellant:

Income-tax returns of the political parties filed with the public authorities and the assessment orders for the period mentioned by the appellant in her RTI-application dated 28-2-2007.

The Commission also directs that the PAN of those political parties whose Income-tax returns are divulged to the applicant shall not be disclosed. It has been decided not to disclose PAN in view of the fact that there is a possibility that this disclosure could be subjected to fraudulent use, reports of which have lately been appearing. It is, therefore, considered practical that while Income-tax returns and the assessment orders pertaining to political parties be disclosed, there should be no disclosure of the PANs of such parties.
 
[Ms. Anumeha, Clo ADR, New Delhi v. CCITICIT of 9 jurisdictions in nine appeals bearing different numbers]

Standing Committee of the Parliament on RTI Act, 2005:

National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) has made a presentation before the above committee. Some of the items of the said presentation are worth noting to understand present deficiencies of the RTI Act.

In February 2009, the items were reported  :

1. Level of awareness.

2. Use and misuse  of the RTI Act.

Hereunder other  2 items:

Reduction of 20-year period for keeping documents:

A common misunderstanding is that the RTI Act only allows access to information that is less than 20 years old. In fact, the RTI Act does not exempt information on the basis of how old it is.

Currently the law [(So8(3)] only allows three categories of exemptions for information older than 20 years, namely, national security [8(1)(a)], Parliamentary privilege [8(1)(c)], and cabinet papers [8(1)(i)]. Therefore, the law does not restrict access to information, which is more than 20 years old, but actually makes it easier to access older information than current information, which is less then 20 years.

However, this does not mean that departments have to preserve records for perpetuity. Departments are free to destroy records or to transfer them to archives as per their rules and procedures related to the destruction or archiving of records. S. 19(8)(a)(iv) of the RTI Act empowers and obligates the Information Commissions to examine the rules and procedure relating to the destruction of records of any public authority and to give directions as necessary to bring these in tune with the intention of the RTI Act. Therefore, we do not think any change is required.

Impediments, including the Official Secrets Act : Our study suggest that the major impediment to the implementation of  the RTI Act  is the  lack of awareness among the people on how to use the Act and what benefits it could have.

A close second is the mindset of the public authorities and the PIOs to find all possible reasons to deny information. The fact that Information Commissions are not imposing penalties, as mandated by the RTI Act, has made many PIOs think that there are no costs to be paid for denying information on the flimsiest of grounds.

Though the RTI Act specifically provides for the overriding of the Official Secrets Act, when there is a conflict between the two, the fact is that the continued existence of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) does cause a fair amount of confusion among both the applicants and the PIOs. Therefore, it might be the best to repeal the OSA and to put the few important provisions that are required, despite the RTI Act, either into an another existing Act like the National Security Act, or into a new Act.

Voluntary    disclosures:

We believe that the suo motu voluntary disclosure of information is critical to the success of the RTI Act. As already mentioned, this is perhaps the most effective way in which the pressure of RTI applications on government departments can be minimised. Suo motu declarations not only save time, but also provide protection to applicants from the weaker segments of society, who are otherwise targeted by those who have a vested interest in keeping the information secret.

Suo motu declarations also ensure that government is not just reactive to those who seek information but treats all potential applicants equally. For example, our experience shows that where suo motu declarations are not insisted upon, ration shop owners make sure that those few people who file RTI applications are properly serviced and do not have a cause for complaint. However, this leaves out the very large majority, who for one reason or another either do not file applications or cannot file them. On the other hand, where the complete records of a ration shop are put into the public domain suo motu, the ration shop owner cannot anticipate who among the various customers would check the records and point out any discrepancies. Therefore, the ration shop owner is forced to ensure that everyone’s records are accurate.

Our experience is that most public authorities do not bother to be in compliance of S. 4, and certainly do not put out all the information that could be put out, suo motu. Partly this is because the law does not directly mandate any penalty for non-compliance with S. 4. In addition, there are also no incentives for public authorities to make the effort.

It would perhaps be best if an independent agency from within the government, like the National Informatics Centre (NIC) of the Government of India is given the responsibility of creating, maintaining and updating websites and printed material giving the required suo motu information for all ministries and departments of the government. Additionally, the concerned ministries and departments could also be given positive incentives -like perhaps trophies for those who perform best in terms of suo motu disclosures.

It is also important that suo motu disclosures are not just web-based, as many people in India do not have r access to the web. These should be in printed form, through sign-boards, radio, TV, and even by using voice mail in cell phones and innovatively communicating information through songs and theatre (like the MKSS songs that sing out all the provisions of the RTI Act, and explains them in verse !)

Justice D. Y. Chandrachud on the RTI Act:

The Right to Information Act has brought about an enormous change in the way we are governed, assured Justice D. Y. Chandrachud of the Bombay High Court at a recent talk on ‘Democracy, Governance and the Rule of Law’. It transpired that people don’t just seek details of case backlog or judges’ salaries, sometimes there are ‘wholly frivolous’ que-ries as well. Recently, an RTI application asked the High Court to reveal how much was spent on flower decoration at a recent function or at the banquet. The Judge, however, said people have a right to ask even irrelevant details. A Court officer is now tracking the floral budget. He might just come out smelling of roses.

BMC to punish the officer  for RTI delay:

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s city engineer has issued a show-cause notice to a Public Information Officer – in this case, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Planning and Development) – asking why his increment for next year should not be withheld. The order comes after State Information Commissioner Suresh [oshi levied a fine Rs.25,000 on the officer for not dispatching a Right to Information (RTI) application to the department concerned in time. The State Information Commissioner had also said in his order that the Municipal Commissioner should investigate the delay and take action as necessary.

Answer sheet on examination paper:

The Calcutta High Court allowing transparency in the evaluation system ruled that students had the right to see their answer sheet and educational institutions should allow it. The verdict came on an appeal by Calcutta University against a Single Bench’s order directing it to show a maths answer sheet to Presidency College student Pritam Rooj after he had sought a re-evaluation. Under the current system, students who doubt the marking can seek a revaluation of their answer sheets. But that is done by the examiner and students have to take the examiner’s word for it. Giving its ruling, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. S. Nijjar and Justice Dipankar Datta directed those concerned to act on all such pending applications and show the answer sheets to aggrieved students within a month. The Bench, however, also set a time limit for students to see their answer sheets.

Performance of Information Commissioners of Maharashtra    :

Today the villagers of Rangpar (a tiny village of 750 people, 25 km from Wankaner in Rajkot district) were happy to see that there is a 2 km road connecting their village to highway. The Gando Baval (babool) shrubs along the roadside have been cleared by the grampanchayat authorities. It took a visually challenged Ratna Ala, 26, to open the eyes of the authorities through the right to information (RTI)Act. At last some development work has been started by grampanchayat in Rajkot. For the last two years Ala has been using RTI to get information on how many schemes the panchayat implemented and how much money they spent. Though he did not get accurate information, it helped the panchayat realise that its inefficiency would be exposed. Ala’s struggle is on, but he is happy that the road has been constructed and the dense shrubs, which were a hindrance to passers-by, are cleared.

Discloser of the  assets  of Commissioners of Information:

Information Commissioners have chosen not to disclose their own assets on the ClC’s website in a development which may cause many to wonder whether the transparency watchdog has trouble following what it preaches to others.

In a candid admission, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said “All Information Commissioners have declared their assets, but they felt that this information should not be put on the Commission’s website. They did not want it on the ClC website.”

Queried further on why the transparency watchdog was not keen on disclosure of its assets, Habibullah said, “The Commissioners felt that they could put up the information on their personal websites”. Crucially, none of the eight Commissioners have their own website.