Right to Information

Issue before the M.P. High Court was whether any public authority can make its own rules and prescribe thereby the fees to be paid for issue of information and copies of documents, etc.

Cantonment Board, Jabalpur (CBJ) passed the resolution and prescribed the fees to be paid under the RTI Act. Under it, fees prescribed were Rs.50 per page of A4 size (against Rs.2 as prescribed in the Central Government RTI rules).

The appellant was asked to deposit Rs.650 towards cost of providing information sought. He accordingly filed a writ. Before the Court, CBJ contended : “The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur has determined the schedule of fees looking to the schedule adopted by the M.P. Government and the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur had done so as the expenses incurred in issuing copies and information were much higher than the fees being paid by the applicants seeking information. The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur being a local body akin to the Municipal Corporation adopted the schedule of fees existing for the Municipal Corporation in the State of M.P”.

Further, it was contended that the information is sought at times from various old records more than 50 years old. It requires involvement of staff which is already short. Considering these and various other aspects, reasonable cost for providing information has been prescribed vide Resolution No. 37, dated 20-12-2005, which is within the powers of the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur being municipal body. It has been mentioned specifically that the High Court has fixed minimum fees of Rs.50 per application in case of general application and Rs.500 in case of information related to tenders, documents, bids, business regulations and the actual cost of medium or printing cost price in case of other documents vide No. 15-R(J), dated 10-1-2006, copy of which is on records as Annexure R/2. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur acceded to the request of various sections of people and withdrew Resolution No. 37, dated 20-12-2005 vide Resolution No. 6, dated 13-9-2007. Accordingly, it is contended that the petition has been rendered infructuous.

The Court noted that although the resolution in question has already been withdrawn, in view of the stand taken by the respondents that the Resolution No. 37 was rightly passed and further in view of the relief for refund of costs it is thought proper to decide the issue raised herein.

It has been contended by the respondents that the Cantonment Board is a local body like Municipal Council and is well competent to make the rules regarding fees and costs as made by the Court. Suffice to say that the Chief Justice of the High Court is a competent authority within the ambit of definition as contained in S. 2(e) of the Act and therefore, by virtue of S. 28 it has powers to make rules with regard to fees and cost in exercise of powers under S. 28 of the Act. The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur being outside the purview of the term ‘Competent Authority’ within the meaning of S. 2(e) of the Act is not competent like the Chief Justice of High Court to make rules. In this view of the matter, the subject Resolution No. 37, dated 20-12-2005 was without any power and had no legal sanctity. Reliance on the prescription of fee and cost by the High Court is absolutely incorrect and misconceived. Since Resolution No. 37 has already been withdrawn, it is not required to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that money received in excess is illegal and by no stretch of imagination it can be retained by CBJ contrary to their entitlement and CBJ was directed to refund the excess money out of the amount deposited by the applicant.

[2009 (1) ID 144 (M.P. High Court) : Amar Chand Bawaria v. Union of India and Others, W.P. No. 9264 of 2007, decided on 5-9-2008]

? Penalty – Reasonable cause Here, in this case, penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed on the State PIO, S. P. Arora, estate officer of HUDA to be recovered in four monthly instalments for the lapse on his part for delay in furnishing the information. The Commission had also imposed a cost of Rs.2000 on account of considerable harassment to the applicant of the information.

The facts of the case were : The sequence of the events would show that the information was sought on 29-1-2007 on one plot when the file of the plot in question was lying with the Bank. The file was received back on 22-2-2007, but again sent to the Bank on 13-3-2007. The same was received on 30-3-2007 and information was supplied on 10-4-2007.

The Court held : “The penalty can be imposed only if there is no reasonable cause for not furnishing the information within the period of 30 days. The word ‘reasonable’ has to be examined in the manner which a normal person would consider it to be reasonable. The right to seek information is not to be extended to the extent that even if the file is not available for the good reasons, still steps are required to be taken by the officer to procure the file and to supply information. The information is required to be supplied within 30 days only if the record is available with the office. The inference cannot be drawn of the absence of reasonable cause for the reason that file could have been requisitioned back from the Bank. Since file was not available with the office, the inference drawn does not seem to be justified.”

In view thereof, the Court was of the opinion that the order of imposing penalty on the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order passed by the State Public Information Commission was set aside.

[2009 (1) ID 1 (Pb & Hry. High Court) : S. P. Arora, SPIO Cum Estate Officer, HUDA v. State Information Commission, Haryana and Others, CWP No. 15288 of 2007, decided on : 17-10-2008]

Part B: The RTI Act

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, two items were reported:

1.    Level of awareness.

2.    Use and misuse  of the RTI Act.

In March 2009, another two items were reported:

1.    Reduction of 20 years period for keeping docu-ments.

2.    Voluntary  disclosures.

Hereunder further 3 items:

Changes  in S. 8 :

Though provisions u/ s.8 are all reasonable, one of the most misused Section of the Act, as seen through our study, is S. 7(9). This Section says that information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought, unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Unfortunately, many government departments are hiding behind this Section to deny all sorts of information even though a close reading of the Section would make it clear that it does not allow you to deny any information, but only allows you to give it out instead in the form available. A circular from the Department of Personnel and Training has confounded the confusion further. Therefore, a clarification needs to be issued through all Information Commissions that this Section of the Act cannot be used to deny information, but only allows the PA to give asked-for information in the form available, rather than in the form asked for.

Another Section that is being misused to deny in-formation is S. 11(1). Again, a close reading of this Section makes it clear that:

(i)    Only that information can be considered third-party under this Section, which has been treated as confidential by the third party. Therefore, all information about a third party does not come under this Section.

(ii)    That even third-party information of this type cannot be withheld unless it is exempt u/ s.8 (1).

This Section of the Act is intended to give the concerned third party an opportunity to try and convince the PIa that the information asked for is exempt under one of the subsections of S. 8(1) or S. 9. Therefore, it obligates the PIO to give an opportunity to be heard to the third party.

However many PIOs are rejecting information that pertains to a third party even when it is not considered confidential by that third party, and without giving any notice to the third party or giving any ground for rejection u/s.8(1) or u/s.9, as required.

Penalties :

The prescription that Rs.250 per day should be imposed as penalty might be appropriate for cases of delay, but is not appropriate for other categories of offences, like refusal to accept application, wrong-ful denial, giving false information, destroying information, etc. These offences cannot be measured in days. Therefore, it would be more appropriate if for these offences a minimum and a maximum penalty was prescribed, giving discretion of the quantum to the Commissioner. These could be a minimum of Rs.5,OOO and a maximum of Rs.50,000 to be raised in keeping with inflation.

It is also important that penalties should be imposable on public authorities if they violate the RTIAct. So, for example, a public authority that does not comply with S. 4 (suo moto) declaration provisions, or does not appoint PIOs and APIOs, or in any way violates the provisions of the RTI Act, should also be required to pay a penalty of a minimum of Rs.25,OOO and a maximum of Rs.5 lakhs.

 Use of the RTI Act and refusal  of information:

We have used the RTI Act over three hundred times in the last three years. A bulk of this has been as a part of our study to assess the implementation of the RTI Act. However, there are many other instances where we have filed RTI. One interesting case, where information was denied to us, related to our request for access to records regarding the appoint-ment of the Chief Information Commissioner and other Central Information Commissioners in 2005. Though the Central Information Commission or-dered that this information be given to us, it never was and our review petition with the Information Commission is pending for over a year.

We had also applied to the Prime Minister’s Office and to the Department of Personnel and Training for access to records pertaining to the Cabinet decision, in 2006, to amend the RTI Act. This was also denied to us because the Government claimed that as the matter was not yet over and was still under consideration of the Cabinet, it was exempt from disclosure.

RTI helps physically-challenged youth:

He had completed standard X in 1996 and possessed a conductor’s licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority. However, his name did not find place in the list of candidates eligible to apply for the post of bus conductor in Madurai Division of TNSTC.

When his enquiry as to why he was dropped from the selection despite necessary qualifications was not replied to, he submitted an application under the RTI Act. In reply, he was informed that physically-challenged persons were not fit to be appointed as conductors.

The reply helped the youngster file a writ petition in the Madras High Court to consider his candidature as enunciated in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Justice K. Venkataraman pointed out that as per the Notification published in the Union Gazette on March IS, 2007, bus conductor was one of the jobs that could be occupied by persons with orthopedic disabili ties.

He agreed with petitioner’s counsel G. Prabhu Rajadurai that there was no reason for the Madurai Division to reject physically challenged persons to the post of conductor when other Divisions were not doing so.

The Judge directed TNSTC to consider the petitioners’ plea within four weeks.

Disclosure of Ministers’ assets:

The controversial issue  of disclosure of Ministers’ assets has been hanging fire for over a year. Applicant Subhash Chandra Agarwal had asked for information related to assets of Union Ministers and their kin.

In his order, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said “the information is not disclosable except with the permission of the Speaker”. This is with reference to the disclosure of information related to Ministers who are LS members. If there is any equivalent rule with regard to the Rajya Sabha, this may also be exercised. The CIC has stipulated a time period of 30 days.

According to sources, there has been precedent when the Speaker has allowed disclosure of assets of LS members. Rules framed by the Parliament committee stipulate that LS members must submit assets in a sealed cover to the Speaker. The information is kept confidential till such time the Speaker deems fit. So far, the Government has been reluctant to part with the information and the PMO holds the view that information sought is exempt u/ s.8 of the RTI Act.

Compliance of S. 4 of the  RTI Act:

Maharashtra Information Commission receives the highest number of appeals in this country. Nearly, 16000 appeals and complaints are pending before the State Commission, some of them as old as of 2006. It appears that if the inflow as is presently continues, it will never be able to cope with reduc-ing the pendency. Hence, SCIC Dr. Suresh Joshi has urged State Chief Secretary Johny Joseph to ensure that public servants uphold the spirit of implementation of the RTI Act. In a letter dated February 25, 2009, Joshi warns Public Information Officers (PIa) to implement RTI Act in its true spirit or face action.

In his letter, he writes: “We get the maximum RTI applications in the world and there is no reason why we should not be judged as the most transparent State. PIOs are the fulcrum of the Act. If they do not discharge their responsibilities properly, then there is a fine. If the PIa does not give information on time, it means he is a willful defaulter. He cannot then say tha”the did not know the Act or that he was not trained. We will strictly implement the procedure of the Act”.

Information on selection of Judges:

The Delhi High Court has stayed an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the Government to disclose documents on the appointment of the Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice, after the Centre pleaded that such information about Judges can’t be revealed under the RTI Act.

Challenging the CIC order that had asked the Govt. to reveal documents and file notings on the appointment of Himachal CJ Jagdish Bhalla, whose promotion file was returned by the then President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam in 2007, Additional Solicitor General P. P. Malhotra pleaded that such information was beyond the RTI purview. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, after hearing his contention, stayed the CIC order and issued a notice to the RTI applicant on whose plea the Commission had passed the direction.

Numbers at CIC :

The following are the disposals of appeals/complaints at the Central Information Commission from October 2008 to January 2009 :

Data available with the Times of India (Tal), accessed through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, shows that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) incurred damages of around Rs.3 crore in various riots that broke out in different parts of the State in the 32 months between April 2006 and November 2008.

The recent Bombay High Court observation, saying leaders of rioting political parties should be made to pay for their supporters’ violence, has come as a shot in the arm for the transport utilities. MSRTC Vice-Chairman O. P. Gupta told TOI “the transport utility would cite the recent Court order that put the onus on political outfits to pay for damages. The political parties should be made responsible and pay up for the damages incurred”.

VIP Gifts:

The Central Information Commission has given the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) 20 days to disclose the system of assessing gifts received by ‘political rulers’ and constitutional authorities, including the President of India, the Prime Minister and Judges of higher courts from foreign countries. Information Commissioner Annapurna Dixit directed the Central Public Information Officer of MEA to provide information about how the assessment of these gifts is done and the list of protocol order.
 
The decision came on an appeal filed by S. C. Agarwal seeking information on the “system fol-lowed on gifts received from foreign countries” by constitutional authorities and others, including the President, Vice-President, LS Speaker, PM, Ministers, Governors, Judges of higher courts, chiefs of three services and others in the protocol list. The appeal also sought a disclosure on whether these gifts were in their official capacity or kept in personal custody or deposited with the Government.