Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

Category: Right To Information

RIGHT TO INFORMATION (r2i)

part A I DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

  • Parties under RTI: Supreme Court notice to Centre,
    Election Commission

The Supreme Court on 15th April, 2019 issued
notice to the Centre, the Election Commission and six national political
parties – the BJP, the Indian National Congress, NCP, CPI, CPI(M) and BSP – on
a writ petition that political parties be brought under the ambit of the Right
to Information Act. The petitioner submitted that political parties held
significant power and hold over the legislature and the executive as well as
their own candidates. And this hold had been made absolute because of the power
of political parties to disqualify elected MPs and MLAs under the Constitution
(anti-defection law). He also submitted that political parties received huge
sums of money from the public as donations and were not liable to pay any taxes
and must, therefore, be made accountable to the public.

 

The
petitioner pointed out that the political parties had defied the CIC order for
several years and sought greater transparency and accountability in the
functioning of all recognised national and regional political parties in the
country. Great harm was being caused to public interest due to lack of
transparency in the political system and the political parties; the electoral
system was generating huge amounts of black money and large sums were being
spent on every election, thus leading to violation of the citizen’s rights
under Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

 

(Source:https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/160419/parties-under-rti-supreme-court-notice-to-centre-election-commission.html)

 

  • Centre can’t withhold docs under RTI citing national
    security, says Supreme Court

The
Supreme Court on 10th April, 2019 said the Centre cannot withhold
documents from disclosure under the RTI Act citing national security if it is
established that retention of such information produces greater harm than
disclosing it.

 

The
observation was made by Justice K.M. Joseph in his 38-page separate but
concurring judgement in which the Supreme Court allowed the plea relying on
leaked documents for seeking review of its judgement on the Rafale fighter jet
deal with France. It dismissed the government’s preliminary objections claiming
“privilege” over them.

 

Justice
Joseph said the RTI Act through section 8(2) has conferred upon the citizens a
“priceless right by clothing them” with the right to demand information even in
respect of such matters as security of the country and matters relating to
relations with a foreign state.

 

“No
doubt, information is not to be given for the mere asking. The applicant must
establish that withholding of such information produces greater harm than
disclosing it,” Justice Joseph said.

 

He
said the premise for disclosure in a matter relating to security and
relationship with a foreign state is public interest.

 

“Right
to justice is immutable. It is inalienable. The demands it has made over other
interests has been so overwhelming that it forms the foundation of all
civilised nations. The evolution of law itself is founded upon the recognition
of right to justice as an indispensable hallmark of a fully evolved nation.

 

“The
Preamble to the Constitution proclaims justice – social, economic or political,
as the goal to be achieved. It is the duty of every State to provide for a fair
and effective system of administration of justice. Judicial review is, in fact,
recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution,” he added.

 

“The
most important aspect in a justice delivery system is the ability of a party to
successfully establish the case based on materials. Subject to exceptions, it
is settled beyond doubt that any person can set the criminal law into motion.
It is equally indisputable, however, that among the seemingly insuperable
obstacles a litigant faces are limitations on the ability to prove the case
with evidence and, more importantly, relevant evidence.

 

“Ability
to secure evidence thus forms the most important aspect in ensuring the triumph
of truth and justice. It is imperative therefore that section 8(2) must be
viewed in the said context. Its impact on the operation on the shield of
privilege is unmistakable,” he said.

 

Justice
Joseph said that a citizen can get a certified copy of a document under the RTI
Act even if the matter pertains to security or relationship with a foreign
nation if a case is made out. If such a document is produced before the Court,
then surely a claim for privilege cannot be made by the government.

 

“It is
clear that under the Right to Information Act, a citizen can get a certified
copy of a document under section 8(2) of the RTI Act even if the matter
pertains to security or relationship with a foreign nation, if a case is made
out thereunder. If such a document is produced surely a claim for privilege
could not lie,” he said.

 

(Source:https://www.ptcnews.tv/centre-cant-withhold-docs-under-rti-citing-national-security-says-supreme-court/)

 

part b I RTI ACT, 2005

  • RTI Act supersedes Official Secrets Act

Delivering
a separate judgement in the Rafale case, Justice K.M. Joseph has made the
following observations:

  • The Right to Information Act confers on ordinary citizens
    the ‘priceless right’ to demand information even in matters affecting national
    security and relations with a foreign state;
  • Justice Joseph’s
    judgement countered the claim made by the government for privilege over Rafale
    purchase documents under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), saying it affected
    national security and relations with France;
  • The Right to
    Information (RTI) Act overawes the OSA. Under section 8(2) of the RTI Act, the
    government cannot refuse information if disclosure in public interest
    overshadows certain ‘protected interests.’

 

Justice
Joseph in his judgement has stated that through section 8(2) of the RTI Act,
Parliament has appreciated that it may be necessary to pit one interest against
another and to compare the relative harm and then decide either to disclose or
to decline information. If higher public interest is established, it is the
will of Parliament that the greater good should prevail though at the cost of
lesser harm being still occasioned.

 

(Source:https://currentaffairs.gktoday.in/tags/right-to-information-act)

 

part c I INFORMATION ON
& AROUND

  • Only 24% government vacancies filled in
    past 5 years: RTI

Only 8,23,107 positions (about 24%) have got filled out of
more than 33 lakh job vacancies in the State over the last five years,
according to a Right to Information (RTI) query.

 

The query was sought specifically for various agencies and
institutions run by the State government. It was also stated that more than 35
lakh persons have registered themselves as ‘unemployed’, according to the Directorate
of Skill Development, Employment and Entrepreneurship of the State government.

 

The information revealed that 2014 had the least percentage
of job positions filled at 10. However, in the succeeding years positions were
filled at only 22%, 25%, 54% and 25% in the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018,
respectively.

For the year 2019, 48,292 positions had been filled out of
1,16,281 vacancies. Meanwhile, 7,26,982 persons had been registered as
unemployed in 2018.

 

(Source:https://www.asianage.com/metros/mumbai/
210419/only-24-per-cent-govt-vacancies-filled-in-past-5-years-rti.html)

 

  • No record of pathology labs in city: BMC’s reply to RTI
    query

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) Public Health
Department does not have a record of the number of pathology laboratories in
the city, its response to a Right to Information (RTI) application has
revealed.

 

Responding to the plea seeking a list of pathology
laboratories, their owners, staff pathologists and contact details in the city,
officials said since the laboratories are not registered under BMC, the
information is not maintained by them.

 

The civic body’s failure to collect this information is in
contravention of a 2018 directive by the Directorate?of Medical Education and
Research (DMER), which asked all civic bodies in the State to submit a detailed
report of pathology laboratories in order to keep a check on illegal clinics.

 

(Source:https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/no-record-of-pathology-labs-in-city-bmc-s-reply-to-rti-query/story-UIxySSakkKot51UGIXj96H.html)

 

  • Electoral bonds of Rs. 10 lakhs, Rs. 1 crore dominate
    donations: RTI application

Almost 99% of donations received by political parties between
March, 2018 and January, 2019 were as electoral bonds of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 1
crore, a social worker has reportedly found through an RTI application.

 

Donors purchased bonds worth Rs. 1,407.09 crores of which Rs.
1,403.90 crores were in the highest denominations of  Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs 1 crore, said Chandrashekhar Goud, who got the data from
the State Bank of India through an RTI query.

 

The donors bought 1,459 electoral bonds of the denomination
of Rs. 10 lakhs and 1,258 bonds of Rs. 1 crore denomination. They purchased 318
bonds of Rs. 1 lakh, 12 bonds of Rs. 10,000 and 24 bonds of Rs. 1,000
denomination.

Parties redeemed electoral bonds worth Rs. 1,395.89 crores.

 

(Source:https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/electoral-bonds-of-rs-10-lakh-rs-1-cr-dominate-donations-rti-application-119041400559_1.html)

 

  • Can’t deny AI
    disinvestment info under RTI: CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the
Civil Aviation Ministry to provide Lucknow-based activist Nutan Thakur
information regarding the disinvestment of Air India (AI).

 

The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry had,
under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, denied Thakur information related to the
records of the deliberations of the Cabinet.

 

According to the PIO, the Cabinet had in principle approved
the proposed disinvestment of the national carrier, though the process had not
been completed.

 

Information Commissioner Divya Prakash
Sinha said that the Ministry had grossly erred in invoking section 8(1)(i) of
the RTI Act to deny information to Thakur, despite the PIO himself admitting to
the Cabinet decision in this regard.

 

The Commission directed the PIO to provide Thakur within 15
days the information available with the Ministry and send it a compliance
report.

 

(Source:https://www.moneylife.in/article/cant-deny-ai-disinvestment-info-under-rti-cic/56732.html)

 

part D I RTI CLINIC –
SUCCESS STORY

The BCAS RTI Clinic was approached by Capt. R. Khadiwal
(Retd.) whose tenure of service was miscalculated as 26 years instead of the
correct tenure of 37 years for purposes of calculation of retirement benefits.
The matter was escalated to a second appeal with the CIC. Air India’s CPIO was
penalised on grounds of delay in providing information; besides, the
Appellant’s claim for compensation of expenses for attending the hearings were
accepted by the CIC’s order.

RTI Clinics in June, 2019, on the 2nd,
3rd, 4th and 5th Saturdays, that is, on 8th,
15th, 22nd and 29th of June.

Time: 11 am to 1 pm at the BCAS premises

RIGHT TO INFORMATION (r2i)

Part A IDECISION OF HIGH COURT

Once an investigation is completed and B-Report is filed by the police, there is no prohibition on giving information about the same under the Right To Information Act:

Case name:

The Public Information Officer and
Director-General of Police, the first appellate authority and Police Upa
Mahanirkshakaru vs. Sri Malleshappa M. Chikkeri and State Information
Commissioner

Citation:

Writ petition No. 18599/2021

Court:

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Bench:

Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda

Decided on:

12th October, 2021

Relevant Act / sections:

Appeal under Right to Information Act, 2005

 

Decision:

• By an impugned order, the State Information Commissioner had directed the Public Information Officer and Director-General of Police to hand over and furnish the B-Report and the enclosures which were sought by Sri Malleshappa M. Chikkeri.

• Mr. Chikkeri’s son had supposedly ended his life by jumping out from a window and it was stated by the authorities that he had died due to excess drinking and a B-Report was submitted in the court. Mr. Chikkeri had sought information regarding the B-Report (which is drawn when the allegations are found to be false or no evidence is found after the completion of investigation), contending that a stigma was attached to his family by the B-Report stating that his son had lost his life due to excessive drinking.

• During the second appeal, the Commissioner had noticed that there was no prohibition to give the information sought because the investigation was already completed. He noted that only in the event that a matter was under investigation was there a bar for grant of information regarding the investigation.

• A writ petition challenging the order passed by the Information Commissioner was filed by the Public Information Officer and Director-General of Police… the First Appellate Authority and Police UPA Mahanirkshakaru with the High Court of Karnataka.

• The Court decided that the Commissioner was absolutely justified in directing the furnishing of the B-Report and its enclosures as sought by Mr. Chikkeri, especially when the investigation in the matter had been concluded.

• The learned counsel for the petitioners were of the opinion that it was open for Mr. Chikkeri to secure the B-Report and enclosures from the Magistrate and there can be no ground to deny the information sought under RTI. Therefore, no grounds are made out to entertain the petition and accordingly the petition was dismissed.

 

Part B I ARREST WARRANT ON NON-COMPLIANCE UNDER RTI

On 20th September, 2021, in one of the rarest of rare cases, an arrest warrant was issued by Mr. Rahul Singh, the Information Commissioner (IC) of Madhya Pradesh (PIO), against Dr. Vikram Singh Verma, the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) of Burhanpur district, who is also the Public Information Officer. Mr Singh was irritated by the PIO’s four-year-long disobedience and non-compliance with the State Information Commission’s (SIC) instructions. Dr. Verma had previously been
issued a show cause notice in which he was asked to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The SIC had also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on him in December, 2020.

 

Is it possible for the SIC to arrest a PIO for non-compliance? Mr. Singh’s order, most likely anticipating this question, cites specific rules from the Central RTI Act and Madhya Pradesh’s rules to support his action. They are as follows:

 

• If the PIO violates section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 by failing to provide information within 30 days of the RTI application, a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, up to a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000, shall be imposed on the guilty PIO u/s 20 of the Act. The amount is expected to be deposited with the SIC by the PIO.

 

• Pursuant to Rule 8(6)(3)(i) of the MP RTI (Fees and Appeal) Rules, 2005, the PIO is required to deposit the imposed penalty with the SIC within one month of receiving the SIC’s penalty order.

 

• According to Rule 8(6)(iii) of the MP RTI (Fees and Appeal) Rules, if the PIO fails to deposit the imposed penalty amount within the prescribed time limit, the SIC shall report to the disciplinary authority concerned in order to take disciplinary action and ensure recovery of the penalty amount against the PIO.

 

• According to section 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act, the Commission has the authority required by a public authority to take any steps necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act. The order of the SIC is binding on the officer concerned according to Rule 8(4) and section 19(7) of the RTI Act.

 

As a result, State IC Rahul Singh issued an arrest warrant in accordance with Order XVI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and section 18(3) of the RTI Act. He directed the Indore division’s Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) to execute the warrant to secure Dr. Vikram Singh’s personal attendance before the SIC at 12 pm on 5th October 5, 2021 in his Court.

 

The first arrest warrant against a PIO was issued by the Information Commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh in 2009.

 

Part C I INFORMATION ON & AROUND

• Over 2.5 lakh RTI appeals, plaints pending with 26 Information Commissions across India

 

In this 16th year of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI), the only thing that continues to cripple its effectiveness is the pitiful performance of the Information Commissioners (IC), which is reflected in the backlog of second appeals and complaints. To date, 2.56 lakh appeals and complaints are pending in the 26 Information Committees. This is a serious matter because the Information Commissions established at the Central and State level are the ultimate appellate authority and have a mandate to protect and facilitate the fundamental right to information.

 

This distressing disclosure of information was compiled in the ‘Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, 2021’. The research was conducted by Satark Nagrik Sanghatan, a group of citizens working for transparency. The report primarily analyses information accessed under the RTI Act by 29 Information Boards across India. To obtain this information, a total of 156 RTI requests were filed with the National and Central Information Commissions. In addition, information was also found in the websites and annual reports of the Information Committees.

 

• Two officials fined for not providing information under RTI Act

 

Two officials attached to the Department of Rural Development, Thoothukudi, have been fined Rs. 25,000 each for not providing information on queries filed under the Right to Information Act even after the second appeal.

 

The Information Commission, which was conducting a district-level inquiry on second appeals for the past three years, had received over 9,000 second appeal petitions, including 30 petitions from Thoothukudi district.

 

• Mahiti Kanaja, an endeavour to enhance Right to Information

 

In Karnataka, Mahiti Kanaja is a single unified portal for all departments which will disclose information related to the status of implementation of Government schemes / public expenditures, etc., on a real-time basis in a user-friendly format down to the GP / ward level. This is on the lines of the ‘Jan Soochna Portal’ initiated in Rajasthan. The information will be provided to the public free of all ‘log-ins’ and passwords, enabling genuine ‘freedom of information’. As in Rajasthan, a ‘Digital Dialogue’ has been initiated by DPAR-Egov, facilitated by the Social Accountability Forum for Action and Research (SAFAR), with a host of civil society organisations and across various departments to revise Mahiti Kanaja from the citizens’ perspective.1

 

1   https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/panorama/mahiti-kanaja-an-endeavour-to-enhance-right-to-information-1041507.html

RIGHT TO INFORMATION (r2i)

PART A | DECISION OF SUPREME COURT

Political parties must publish criminal antecedents of candidates within 48 hours of their selection1
 

Case name:

Brajesh Singh vs. Sunil Arora & Ors.

Citation:

Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 656 of 2020
in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 2192 of 2018 in WP (Civil) No. 536 of 2011
with M.A. Diary No. 2680 of 2021

Court:

The Supreme Court of India

Bench:

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and
Justice B.R. Gavai

Decided on:

10th August, 2021

Relevant Act / sections:

Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Decision:
• With the objective of decriminalisation of politics, the Supreme Court directed that the political parties must publish the criminal antecedents, if any, of the candidates within 48 hours of their selection.
• The Court has also directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to create a dedicated mobile application containing information published by candidates regarding their criminal antecedents, so that at one stroke every voter gets such information on his / her mobile phone.
• Further, the Court has directed the political parties to publish information regarding the criminal antecedents of their candidates on the homepage of their websites, thus making it easier for the voter to get to the information that has to be supplied, and to have on the homepage a caption which states ‘Candidates with criminal antecedents’;
• The ECI was told to carry out an extensive awareness campaign to make every voter aware about his right to know and the availability of information regarding the criminal antecedents of all contesting candidates. The campaign will be carried out across various platforms, including social media, websites, TV ads, prime time debates, pamphlets, etc. Further, a fund must be created for this purpose within a period of four weeks into which fines for contempt of court may be directed to be paid.
• For the aforesaid purposes, the ECI was also directed to create a separate cell which will also monitor the required compliances so that the Apex Court can be apprised promptly of non-compliance by any political party of the directions contained in the Court’s orders as fleshed out by the ECI in instructions, letters and circulars issued in this behalf.

PART B | VACANCIES IN SICs AND PENDING PLEAS

The Supreme Court of India had, while hearing a matter in 2019 on pendency and vacancies in the State Information Commissions (SICs), ordered timely and transparent appointment of Information Commissioners to the respective Commissions set up under the RTI Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari heard a petition on 18th August, 2021 regarding delay in appointment of Information Commissioners under the RTI Act. During the hearing, it was pointed out that despite the Court ruling, the Union of India and several States had failed to fill the vacancies in their Information Commissions, leading to a large number of pending cases and long delays in the disposal of appeals / complaints.

Information regarding vacancies in some States was provided as below through an additional affidavit:

Maharashtra
In February, 2019 the SC had directed the State to ensure that the Information Commission functions at full strength (one Chief and ten Information Commissioners) given the large backlog of appeals and complaints. However, as on date the commission was functioning with only four Commissioners even though the pendency as of 31st May, 2021 stood at more than 75,000 appeals / complaints. The bench pulled up the State of Maharashtra for not filling the vacancies on the SIC and warned that the Chief Secretary will be summoned if the State fails to fill the vacancies within three weeks.

Karnataka
In 2019, the SC had directed that the SIC should function at full strength for which the Government must sanction all posts. While the State had sanctioned all posts, however, at the hearing it was pointed out that currently three posts are vacant even though there is a backlog of more than 30,000 appeals / complaints. The SC directed the State to fill the vacancies and file a status report.

Odisha
The SC had directed the State of Odisha in 2019 to sanction three additional posts so that the Commission can function with one Chief and six Information Commissioners, given the backlog of cases. In the hearing it emerged that the State had sanctioned only two additional posts and currently the Commission was functioning with only four Commissioners. One post had fallen vacant in November, 2020 and was yet to be filled up, while the Chief had retired on 15th August, 2021. The SC directed the Government to file a status report.

Telangana
The SIC of Telangana has been functioning without a Chief for one year despite the fact that the RTI Act envisages a crucial role for the Chief as the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the SIC vests in the Chief. The SC expressed disappointment at the state of affairs and directed that the appointment should be made by the next date of hearing.

Nagaland
It was highlighted that the previous SIC Chief had retired in January, 2020 and since then no new Chief had been appointed. As a result, for 19 months the Commission has been headless. The State was directed to fill the vacancy and file a status report.

West Bengal
In its February, 2019 judgment, the SC had directed the State Government to create three posts of Commissioners in addition to the sanctioned strength of three (one Chief and two Information Commissioners). During the hearing it was pointed out that currently the Commission is functioning with only two commissioners (one Chief and one Information Commissioner) although nearly 10,000 appeals / complaints are pending before it. The SC pulled up the State Government for failing to file an affidavit before the hearing and for not filling the vacancies.

Jharkhand
The Government of Jharkhand was not a respondent in the case, but it was pointed out that the condition of the Information Commission was alarming as it had been effectively rendered defunct since May, 2020 when the lone Information Commissioner retired. Since then no Information Commissioner or Chief has been appointed and the Commission has been non-functional with people seeking information from public authorities under the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand SIC having no recourse to the independent appellate mechanism prescribed under the RTI Act. The SC expressed anguish at the current state of affairs and directed the State to fill the vacancies and also file a report.

It will be worthwhile to understand the submissions made by the Union of India and the State governments regarding the vacancies and pendencies2.

PART C | PART C I INFORMATION ON AND AROUND

• RTI reveals Income-tax department, Pune, rejected 90% applications for Section 80G / 12A approval
CA M.L. Baheti moved an RTI application on 9th July, 2021 before the Income-tax Department, Pune, to identify how many 80G / 12A applications had been approved by the Department. The reply to the application revealed that around 90% of the applications filed by an NGO had been rejected for the reasons best known to the Department. Data was obtained for the period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2021 in respect of the number of applications filed and approved and shows the following alarming facts:

  

 

Applications

u/s 12A

%

Applications

u/s 80-G

%

Applications filed

4,881

100

2,070

100

Applications approved

355

7.27

379

18.30

Applications rejected

2,471

50.62

961

46.42

Unexplained applications

2,055

42.10

730

35.26

This is the situation of Pune Zone alone, leave aside the entire country. From the above it is clear that the applications for approval of a majority, i.e., 80 to 90%, of cases are being rejected. This non-transparency of the Department has become a hurdle for charitable trusts and NGOs as the whole country is moving from the Covid-19 pandemic situation where the role of NGOs and fast approval for 80-G is very important3.

• Odisha Information Commission brings major private university under RTI purview
The Odisha State Information Commission has declared Kalinga Institute of Industrial Training (KIIT), a deemed university and one of the State’s largest private institutions, as a public authority, which means the university has to furnish information under the Right To Information Act4.

• No authority can force RTI applicant to submit ID
Haryana’s State Information Commission has held that no authority in the State can force an RTI applicant to file the application in a particular format and to disclose any reason for seeking information. The Commission observed that the RTI Act, 2005 is a Central Act and section 6(2) allows an applicant to conceal his / her identity and to seek information without giving any reason5.

• Uttar Pradesh Government spent Rs. 160 crores on TV ads in one year
The Uttar Pradesh Government spent a staggering Rs. 160.31 crores on advertisements on TV news channels between April, 2020 and March, 2021, reveals a right to information reply by the State Government. The RTI divided the State’s ad expenditure into ‘national TV news channels’ and ‘regional TV news channels’. The former got Rs. 88.68 crores and the latter Rs. 71.63 crores6.

• Maharashtra Government spent Rs. 155 crores on publicity campaigns in 16 months
The Directorate-General of Information and Public Relations has informed an RTI activist that Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s Mahavikas Aghadi Government has spent Rs. 155 crores on publicity campaigns in the last 16 months. About Rs. 5.99 crores has been spent on social media and Rs. 9.6 crores on publicity campaigns7 every month.

_____________________________________________________________________

1 https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/criminal-antecedents-judgment ll2021sc367-398294.pdf
2    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H-5CogZc0TejH3Zrya4wk5TzXmNI1Ux5/view https://www.counterview.net/2021/08/sc-pulls-up-state-govts-for-choking.html
3    https://taxguru.in/income-tax/rti-reveals-department-rejects-90-per-cent-applications-section-80g-12a-approval.html
4    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/odisha-information-commission-brings-major-private-university-under-rti-purview/article36008135.ece
5    https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/no-particular-format-required-to-file-rti-haryana-information-commission/2138675
6    https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/07/21/yogi-government-spent-rs-160-crore-on-tv-ads-in-one-year-network18-hits-the-jackpot
7    https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rti-reveals-maharashtra-government-spent-rs-155-crore-on-publicity-campaigns-in-16-months-1823805-2021-07-04

RIGHT TO INFORMATION (r2i)

PART A  | DECISION OF CIC

RTI plea seeking details of Supreme Court Collegium’s December, 2018 meeting rejected By CIC1
 

Case name:

Ms Anjali Bhardwaj vs. CPIO, Supreme Court
of India

Citation:

Second appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/642099

Court:

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

Bench:

Chief Information Commissioner Y.K. Sinha

Decided on:

16th December, 2021

Relevant Act / sections:

Appeal under Right to Information Act, 2005

Brief facts
This RTI application had sought information about the Supreme Court Collegium meeting held on 12th December, 2018. At that meeting, the then collegium, comprising the then Chief Justice of India Justice Gogoi and four senior-most Judges, viz. Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Mr. Justice A.K Sikri, Mr. Justice S.A Bobde and Mr. Justice N.V Ramana, took certain decisions regarding the appointment of judges. However, the decisions / details of the meeting were not uploaded on the Supreme Court website and in a subsequent meeting the decisions were overturned, it was claimed by RTI activist and the appellant, Ms Anjali Bhardwaj

Contentions of the appellant
This RTI application and second appeal had been filed in the larger public interest.

Disclosure of information is necessary since the decisions taken at the meeting of 12th December, 2018 were subsequently overturned after the change of composition of the Collegium; even if no resolution was passed, the agenda and decision of the meeting should be disclosed.

Section 8 of the RTI Act was not considered by the CPIO prior to denial of information which was done on the vague grounds that the matter of appointment of the Hon’ble Judges is a matter of judicial proceedings that are at present subjudice before the Supreme Court. However, the RTI Act does not allow for denial of information on such vague grounds.

The information sought in the present RTI application is completely different from the type of information that is sought in cases that are subjudice.

Decision
‘On perusal of the resolution dated 10.01.2019 it is clear that the agenda for the meeting dated 12.12.2018 has been mentioned therein which answers point No. 1 of the instant RTI application. With regard to the remaining points, the Commission concurs with the order of the FAA dated 23.04.2019 and holds that in the absence of any resolution passed in the meeting dated 12.12.2018, no available information as per Section 2 (f) exists on record which can be disclosed to the Appellant. Furthermore, the final outcome of the fate of the meeting dated 12.12.2018 has been discussed in the resolution dated 10.01.2019. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal which is disposed of accordingly.’

PART B | DECODING RTI (SECTION-WISE), PART 1

Background and basic understanding
At the International level, Right to Information and its aspects find articulation as a human right in the most important basic human rights documents, namely, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At regional levels, there are numerous other human rights documents which include this fundamental right, for example, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, etc. The Commonwealth has also formulated principles on freedom of information.

The Indian Parliament had enacted the ‘Freedom of Information Act, 2002’ in order to promote transparency and accountability in administration. The National Common Minimum Programme of the Government envisaged that ‘Freedom of Information Act’ will be made more ‘progressive, participatory and meaningful’, following which, a decision was taken to repeal the ‘Freedom of Information Act, 2002’ and enact a new legislation in its place. Accordingly, the ‘Right to Information Bill, 2004’ (RTI) was passed by both the Houses of Parliament in May, 2005 and which received the assent of the President of India on 15th June, 2005. ‘The Right to Information Act’ was Notified in the Gazette of India on 21st June, 2005. The ‘The Right to Information Act’ became fully operational from 12th October, 2005.

This law empowers Indian citizens to seek any accessible information from a public authority and makes the Government and its functionaries more accountable and responsible. The Right to Information Act, 2005 mandates timely response to citizen requests for Government information.

Objective of the Right to Information Act
The basic object of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption and make our democracy work for the people in the real sense. It goes without saying that an informed citizen is better equipped to keep necessary vigil on the instruments of governance and make the Government more accountable to the governed. The Act is a big step towards making the citizens informed about the activities of the Government.

What is information?
Information is any material in any form. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and so on. It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force.

What is a public authority?
A ‘public authority’ is any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution; or by any other law made by the Parliament or a State Legislature; or by notification issued or order made by the Central Government or a State Government. The bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government and non-Government organisations substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government also fall within the definition of public authority. The financing of the body or the NGO by the Government may be direct or indirect.

PART C | INFORMATION ON & AROUND

More than 32,000 RTI appeals pending with Central Information Commission: Centre2
On 16th December, 2021, in a written reply, Minister of State for Personnel Jitendra Singh said there was a pendency of 35,178 and 38,116 RTI appeals during 2019-20 and 2020-21, respectively. A total of 32,147 RTI appeals were pending in 2021-22, as on 6th December, 2021.

The Government has taken several steps like capacity building through training and issuance of guidelines for Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities so as to enable them to supply information / dispose of first appeals effectively, resulting in less number of appeals to the Information Commission. The Government has also issued clarificatory orders impressing upon the public authorities to disclose maximum information proactively so that citizens need not resort to filing of Right to Information (RTI) applications to access information available with the public authorities, Mr. Singh added.

Denial of information by SoI on AP-Karnataka border demarcation raises eyebrows3
In reply to applications filed under the Right to Information Act by Ballari-based miner and activist Tapal Ganesh, who had been questioning the survey methodology, the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Geo-Spatial Data Center (AP&T GDC), the Survey of India, Hyderabad, has declared that the details sought are ‘classified information covered under section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act, 2005, and cannot be supplied.’

The information sought included the proceedings of survey and demarcation, survey sketch / map, survey DGP survey readings with altitude level of each survey (boundary) point, drone survey, objection for the survey, if any, and maps showing the contours and stream levels in the geo-coded Ballari Reserve Forest Map of 1896. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) refused to disclose the information by declaring it as classified under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Mr. Ganesh approached the appellant authority which, on 10th December 2021, upheld the CPIO’s decision.

Gujarat Government launches online RTI portal
Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel launched an online Right to Information (RTI) portal enabling online filing of RTI applications by citizens. This is in accordance with two Public Interest Litigations of 2018 and 2019, respectively, before the Gujarat High Court seeking implementation of online filing of RTI applications. The portal at which one can file applications online is https://onlinerti.gujarat.gov.in. The Government should also make efforts to get the RTI applications replied to in a timely manner and with proper information sought by the applicant.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1    https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-rti-anjali-bhardwaj-20-23-406544.pdf
2    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/over-32000-rti-appeals-pending-with-central-information-commission-govt/article37969462.ece
3    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/denial-of-info-by-soi-on-border-demarcation-raises-eyebrows/article38044961.ece

RIGHT TO INFORMATION (r2i)

In loving Memory of Narayan Varma

PART A | DECISION OF HIGH COURT

State Vigilance Department not completely exempted from operation of RTI Act1
 

Case name:

Subash Mohapatra & Ors. vs.
State of Odisha & Anr.

Citation:

W.P.(C) No. 14286 of
2016

Court:

Hon’ble High Court, Orissa

Bench:

Hon’ble Chief Justice Dr. S.
Muralidhar and Hon’ble Justice Radha Krishna Pattnaik

Decided on:

20th June, 2022

Relevant Act / sections:

Section 24 and 28 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005

Brief facts
• The notification dated 11th August, 2016, stating that Nothing in the RTI Act shall apply to the General Administration (Vigilance) Department of the Government of Odisha and its organization, issued by the Commissioner/Secretary of the Information and Public Relations Department of the Government of Odisha in accordance with Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, was the subject of three writ petitions, each of which was submitted as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

 

1   https://theleaflet.in/vigilance-department-cannot-claim-blanket-immunity-from-rti-act-says-orissa-high-court/

Contentions of the Petitioners:
• Violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which guarantees all citizens the fundamental right to information.

• Exemption provided under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not available to intelligence and security organizations where the allegations pertain to corruption and human rights violations. Therefore, inasmuch as the impugned notification seeks to exempt the entire Vigilance Department in Odisha from the purview of the RTI Act, irrespective of the proviso to Section 24(4), it is ultra vires Section 24(4).
    
Decision:
“For all of the aforementioned reasons, this Court issues a declaratory writ to the effect that the impugned notification dated 11th August, 2016 issued by the Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Odisha under Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act, will not permit the Government to deny information pertaining to the Vigilance Department involving allegations of corruption and human rights violations, and other information that does not touch upon any of the sensitive and confidential activities undertaken by the Vigilance Department. A further clarificatory notification to the above effect be issued by the Government of Odisha within four weeks.”

PART B |  DECODING RTI (SECTION-WISE), PART 2

In Part 1, we understood about the background and basic understanding, objective of the Right to Information Act what is Information and what is a Public Authority?

In Part 2, we will understand about some more basic definitions under the Act.

Record:
Includes
(a) any document, manuscript and file;
(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
(c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
(d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device.

Right to Information
means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to—
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;

Third Party
means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.

In part 1, we understood who a Public Authority is, now we shall understand its obligations and duties, the same is provided under Section 4 of the Act.

Section 4(1) of the RTI Act defines the obligations of public authorities. Every public authority must maintain all its records. They must be duly catalogued and indexed in a manner that facilitates easy dispersal of information under the right to information under this Act. It is to ensure that all appropriate records are computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems for easy access.

The authority must publish information pertaining to its organisation, functions, and duties. It must explain publicly the powers and duties of its officers and employees. Further, it must enunciate the procedure followed in its decision-making process, and the norms and rules followed by it in discharging its functions. It must issue a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or are under its control.

It must also publish a directory of its officers and the system of remuneration for their services. It must make public details of its Public Information Officer such as name, designation and contact details. Information relating to avenues and channels for obtaining information from the authority must be made public in an easy and accessible way. It must publish all relevant facts that were taken into consideration in policy formulation. It must also provide reasons for its administrative and quasi-judicial decision to persons affected by its decisions.

Details of its financial plans and budget allocations must be made public. Further, it must illustrate the execution of subsidy programmes and provide details of the expenditures incurred. If any concessions and permits have been granted by it then details of the recipients of these must be included. It must clearly state the details of arrangements made for consultation in relation to policymaking. Details of board or councils or committees must be furnished along with minutes of their meetings.

All information must be disseminated widely and in a manner that is easily accessible to the public. The authority must also on its own volition make all such information public instead of waiting for citizens to file RTIs seeking such information. The dissemination must be conducted in a cost-effective manner.

PART C | INFORMATION ON & AROUND

Delhi HC Dismisses Students’ Plea Requiring GGSIP Universit y To Provide Certified Copies Of Answer Scripts As Per Fee Prescribed Under RTI Rules2

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by two final year law students seeking directions on Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for providing certified copies of answer-scripts to students as per the fee prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 at candidate’s request. A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta however clarified that the Court has not examined the issue as to whether the charges or fee prescribed by the University of Rs. 1,500 per examination answer sheet is excessive, or could be said to defeat the right to obtain information, as no challenge was raised to the prescription of the said fee under its Rules.
_________________________________________

2   https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-ggsip-university-certified-copies-answer-scripts-rti-rules-200014

CIC Slams UGC for Forwarding an RTI Application 16 Times from One Deptartment to Another! 3
Slamming the University Grants Commission (UGC) for making the right to information (RTI) applicant wait for two years during which time it pushed his RTI application from one department to another, 16 times over, the central information commissioner (CIC) observed this delay “as a blatant error and wilful violation of the provision of the RTI Act and that of the public authority.”

Rajiv Khatri, the RTI applicant, sought certified copies under RTI, as follows: 1) Mechanism of grievance redressal for faculty members of affiliated private self-financing colleges of universities under the list of universities of UGC. 2) Standard operating procedure (SOP) of processing of a complaint. And; 3) Name and address of the authority to forward the complaint in case of non-action of the complaint.

____________________________________________________

3   https://www.moneylife.in/article/cic-slams-ugc-for-forwarding-an-rti-application-16-times-from-one-dept-to-another/67426.html

RTI Act | Penalty under section 20(2) For Destruction Of Information Sought Not Attracted In Absence Of Malafide: Gujarat High Court4
The Gujarat High Court has held that where any information sought under the Right to Information Act is destroyed and it is not the case of malafide destruction of information, penalty under Section 20(2) of RTI Act shall not be attracted. Section 20 stipulates disciplinary action against a Public Information Officer where information sought is not supplied within the time specified, or is malafidely denied or incorrect information is knowingly given or information is destroyed.
______________________________________________________

4   https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gujarat-high-court-rti-act-section-202-destruction-or-non-preservation-of-record-article-226-201897