Right to Information

l S. 2(f) and S. 7 :

    Mr. Rakesh Agarwal sought the following information under RTI application to Mr. K. S. Rawat, PIO, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi :

    1. Whether intimations are sent by each traffic court of Delhi presided over by Spl. M.M.S. as required by S. 210 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ?

    2. If not, reasons for the same.

    3. If yes, copies of all such intimations that pertain to convictions on 9 and 10 January 2008 across all Traffic Courts of Delhi.

    The PIO held that information sought for was not held by or under the control of any public authority and therefore did not fall u/s.2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines ‘information’.

    Further, the PIO stated that the appellant was representing his newspaper/magazine called ‘Nyay Bhumi’ and had filed 3 RTI applications in 15 days and the appellant was working for promotion of his business rather than serving social interest. Hence, it was a blatant misuse of the RTI Act.

    The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to collect the information from the Courts dealing with traffic cases and send it to the appellant within 20 days. The order was passed by FAA beyond 45 days and no hearing was given.

    The following two were grounds of appeal before CIC :

•     The PIO demanded payment for providing information thereby violating S. 7(6)

•      FAA did not afford a hearing to the appellant and received the FAA’s order on 25-2-2009 thereby exceeding the time limit set in the Act.

    It may be noted that the PIO had first held that information sought was not covered u/s.2(f) and only when FAA directed to furnish information, he agreed to provide it but only on payment of prescribed fee (i.e., Rs.2 per page). While the appellant’s contention was that having not validly denied supply of information, the same has to be submitted free as provided u/s.7(6) which reads as under :

        S. 7(6) : Notwithstanding anything contained in Ss.(5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in Ss.(1).

CIC in the decision stated :

    “It is a basic tenet of statutory interpretation that words of a statute should be interpreted keeping in mind the context in which they appear. Information is to be provided free of cost if S. 7(1) is not complied with. Rejection of a request for any of the reasons specified in S. 8 or S. 9 has to be valid rejection in law. If a ground for exemption from disclosure is wrongly relied upon, then it does not amount to ‘rejection of a request’ as started in S. 7(1). It is absurd to contend that the appellant must be made to pay the additional fees when the PIO wrongly denies information. The Commission finds the PIO’s deliberate misconstruction of the law unacceptable. This is an attempt to obstruct the implementation of the RTI Act and to delay the provision of information to the appellant without any reasonable cause.

    CIC also observed that the PIO on several occasions, all of which are on record, has made unwarranted and irrelevant observations which give the impression that the PIO is malafidely denying information to the appellant. The Commission strongly advised the PIO to refrain from making such comments in future.

    Based on the above, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant free of cost. He was also asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be not recommended against him u/s.20(1) of the RTI Act.

    [Mr. Rakesh Agarwal v. PIO, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, CIC/SG/A/2009/000675/3390, dated 22nd May 2009]

Ration card :

    The appellant had applied for a ration card in 2006 and in spite of repeatedly being shunted to various places did not get any ration card. The PIO stated that the Government has subsequently declared as to how many BPL cards will be issued and time was set for applications to be made for BPL cards. The Delhi Government accepted applications for BPL cards in February-March 2009 and decided on a maximum number of cards which are to be given. He stated that the applications were received and sent to a Vigilance Committee headed by MLA of the area. He admited that these cards are supposed to be given in 45 days, but the time at the Vigilance Committee headed by MLAs takes indefinite time.

CIC Shailesh Gandhi in the decision stated :

    The appellant has not been given any appropriate reply indicating what is happening to her ration card application. The approximate loss to her per month of free foodgrain and kerosene is about Rs.500 per month. The appellant should have got proper answer to her RTI application by 6-4-2009. The loss of free foodgrain due to her is already for three months by which she has suffered loss of Rs.1500. The Commission also feels that the loss of time and trauma which she suffered on account of not getting her due entitlement and pursuing this application and appeal should be compensated with another Rs.1000. Hence the Commission awarded a total compensation of Rs.2500 to the appellant for loss of entitlement and to compensate for the effort and the trauma suffered in pursuing this matter.

    The PIO was directed to give the information to the appellant before 10th July 2009 about the status of her application giving names and designations of the officers who have dealt with the BPL card application and where the application is presently.

    [Smt. Nagina Devi, Delhi v. PIO, Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, GNCT of Delhi, CIC/SG/A/2009/001213+1214/3969, dated 2nd July 2009]

Annual Report Maharashtra State Information Commission :

Please refer to RtoI of June, 2009. Under other news, I had reported some statistics as covered in the Annual Report of Maharashtra State Information Commission. Now the report in English is published and Dr. Suresh Joshi, CSIC has kindly sent me a copy.

It is Third Annual Report of the year 2008. Some interesting extracts from it:

• 1,23,000 applications in 2006, 3)6,000 in 2007 and 4,16,090 in 2008 have been received respectively. In bigger States of our country less than one lakh applications come in one year. In the international arena England receives about 60,000, Mexico about 94,000. Similarly the Central Government receives about two and a half lakh applications. Thus it is seen that the people of Maharashtra have given tremendous response to this Act.

• Understanding the important issues touching the lives of the people by using this Act agitating them on proper platform, fighting injustices, checking corruption, increasing the commitment of government employees to work and increasing the overall transparency in government functioning – many such like issues have been addressed due to the use of this Act.

• Many young people have thrown themselves in this movement of the Right to Information. Similarly, many people above 60 years have also participated in spreading awareness about right to information. It is heartening to see that associations of officers, employees of the Government of Maharashtra have declared their support for this Act and have appealed to their members to give maximum information to the people through this Act. All these factors have proved useful in obtaining people’s support for this Act.

• Maharashtra is the only State in the country where Benches of the Information Commission have been set up at the Division, level. Greater Mumbai, Konkan, Pune, Aurangabad, Nagpur already have Benches. Towards the end of 2008 Amravati Bench was constituted and on 24 December 2008 the Information Commissioner was appointed there. Only Nashik Bench now remains to be established and I am hopeful that it would be done soon.

• Due to the formation of Divisional Benches the Commission’s work has reached nearer to the people. Commissioners have not only heard appeals at the divisional headquarters, but have attempted to hear them at the District level. Therefore people realised that ‘the Commission has come to our doors’ and this was perhaps one of the reasons for increasing number of RTI applications.

• In 2007 the Commission decided 3611 appeals and complaints. This number is 15026 for the year 2008. The Commission has also started arranging hearings through video conferencing.

Annual Report 2006-07 of Central Information Commission :

(continuing from  July 2009)

v) Collection of Charges by Public Authority (Vide: S. 25(3)(e) of RTI Act) : All the Minis-tries/Departments/ Apex-level Offices taken together collected Rs.30,71,167 in the year 2006-07. In the year 2005-06, the amount collected was Rs.5,08,490. There is six times increase in the amount collected in year 2006-07 over the previous year. Top 10 Ministries collected a total of Rs.22, 82,984 (74.33% of the total) in the year 2006-07.

vi) Disposal  of appeals  (Vide:  S. 25(3)(c) of RTI Act) : All the Ministries/Departments/ Apex-level Offices, on an average, disposed 75% of the appeals received during the year 2006-07. Out of 57 Ministries/Departments/ Apex-level Offices, 22 Ministries have disposed 100% appeals during the year and 65 Public Authorities have received more than 50 appeals.

vii) Implementation   of the Act (Vide:  S. 25(3)(f) of RTI Act) : Efforts taken by Public Authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of RTI Act include launching of website to disseminate information with respect to Act and developing Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System (PGRMS) by some Ministries. Suggestions were received from Public Authorities about increasing fee for seeking information, for filing first and second appeals, increase in time to respond for older records, and taking up more capacity building programmes.

viii) Recommendations   for Reforms,  etc. (Vide:  S. 25(3)(g) of RTI Act) : The Central Information Commission has made valuable recommendations for reforms and with respect to specific Ministries with a view to make RTI Act more effective. The recommendations include (a) streamlining the procedure of dealing with RTI applications, (b) strengthening of the staff for efficient disposal of RTI applications, (c) implementation of homogeneous fee structure, (d) full conformance with spirit of RTI Act, (e) respect for dignity of citizens. In addition CIC made some observations with similar objectives. These observations are with respect to (a) promotion of employees of Public Authorities, invasion of the privacy, (c) interpretations of rules and Acts, (d) language issues, (e) communication issues, (f) adherence to record retention policies and process of weeding out information, (g) computerisation, (h) training of the staff, and status of governing body and strengthening of staff grievances redressal system.

•  Unclaimed money in the banks:

Coming down heavily on banks that keep funds in ‘suspense accounts’, the Central Information Commission has asked RBI to disclose details regarding ICICI Bank. CIC also directed RBI to provide information in 10 days if other banks, including govt-run ones, were following this practice. In his order, Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra asked RBI to give a “comprehensive reply stating categorically if the RBI had ever issued any instruction on the subject and if according to them such practice was being followed in other banks including public sector banks”. The decision could have far-reaching impact in bringing information on unclaimed money into the public demain.

•  File notings    :

[Further to file notings as appeared in July 2009 issue]

In a Circular issued in the third week of June, DoPT has stated, “It is hereby clarified that file notings can be disclosed except those containing information exempt from disclosure u/s.8 of the Act.” DoPT’s move comes after the CIC had issued notice to two Department officers seeking reason why they should not be prosecuted for disobeying its orders. The Commission had asked the Department to correct its website which said notings couldn’t be disclosed under the Act. DoPT Minister Prithviraj Chavan has said that notings were not part of the proposed amendments to the RTI Act.

•  BSE and  SEBI :

Yogesh Mehta, a former sharebroker, and whom BCAS foundation RTI clinic on ongoing basis provides assistance has again received an order from CIC in his favour. CIC in a landmark order has directed the SEBI to procure information from the BSE’s Investor Protection Fund (IPF) and provide it to Mr. Mehta whose shares worth lakhs of rupees are lying impounded with IPF since last 13 years.

While BSE did not have any objection in providing information to SEBI, it was of the view that SEBI cannot provide the same to the citizen under the RTI Act. It is learnt that now a big battle awaits between BSE, SEBI and the applicant.

•  Mediclaim Policy refund:

The RTI Act has come to the help of thousands of Mediclaim policy holders who have been struggling to get refund for the excess premium they have paid. The Central information Commission (CIC) has directed New India Assurance Company Ltd. to make public the details of the total number of policy holders who are still to get a refund for the excess premium charged. The CIC has asked the company to provide the information on the company’s website and send a copy of information to the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority.

Is vacation an excuse to delay on RTI application?

CIC has ruled that there is no law that allows Courts to give up their obligation under the Right to Information Act even if many staff members are on vacation. CIC’s disapproval came on HC’s failure to furnish an RTI response to an applicant on the ground that staff is lean owing to vacation.

“The Commission finds it difficult to accept that any public authority can claim vacation from RTI for one month which is not provided for in law,” Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi noted in a recent decision.