ABSTRACT
The Right to Information Act 2005 was enacted on October 12, 2005. This Act was passed after several amendments and many years it had taken for its enActment because it had taken many years since the appointment of the Shourie committee. Initially, the bill was called the Freedom of information bill.
This Act has made it easy for anyone to access information with the nominal price of 10 rupees, and later the fees need to be paid for copies as prescribed. Earlier, the person had to pay the Government official to access information. Still, it has changed because now Government officials are obliged to provide information on receiving the application for seeking knowledge. RTI is one of the effects of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution.
KEYWORDS
Medico legal case (MLC), Chargesheet, public interest, public information officer (PIO), Central information commission (CIC), Below Poverty Line (BPL), Right to Information (RTI)
INTRODUCTION
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) started demanding transparency in village accounts through minimum wages. The reason behind the campaign was the fraudulent entries made in the register of wages. The journey of RTI started in 1993 when the draft was proposed by the CERC, which stands for consumer education council, in Ahmedabad.
The Right to information is recognized now as a right at the international level also, which can be seen as
- Article 19 of UNDHR 1948[1] says that the private sector is also covered under the Right to access data
- Article 19(2) ICCPR 1966[2] stands for an international convention on civil and political life and looks forward to exchanging information.
- Sweden was the first nation to recognise the Right to information as long as 1766[3].
The RTI Act contains all the procedures to file an RTI and discusses the penalty imposed in case of non-disclosure of information to the information seeker. It has six chapters where the first chapter is the introduction part; the second chapter highlights the obligations of public servants; the third chapter talks about the role of CIC, chapter four talks about the working of SIC, in the fifth chapter, the appeal procedure is discussed, and in the sixth chapter, all miscellaneous provisions are contained therein.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research paper talks about the Right to information which can be used as a right to access information by the procedure laid in the Right to Information Act 2005, the Act here being the primary source for preparing the research paper, and the secondary sources here are the book RTI use and abuse by the author prof. Madhabushi Sridhar journals, news articles, blogs and verified websites are used.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
RTI Act defines the competent authority who can be asked to furnish the information under section 2(e) and report if asked is not public. The rules cannot provide it. Suppose the information requested relates to any third party. In that case, the concerned person’s permission must be asked before giving any information, and the third person is defined in section 2(n) of the RTI Act.
Then sec 3 provides an exception to RTI in cases of preventive detention. Also, sec 4 says that the applicant need not quote his reasons for why the current application is filed. Further, sec 6 tells how the information, if related to any other department than the one in which it is filed, will be transferred to the concerned department within five days of receiving the application. This section tells the procedure of filing applications in Hindi, English or any official language. The application can be filed in writing or electronically, and the necessary assistance will be provided by the CPIO wherever necessary.
According to Section 7, information must be provided within 30 days of receiving knowledge; it can be denied when the information asked hits Section 8 and Section 9. Also, Below the poverty line (BPL) are exempted from the payment of fees. Section 8 deals with the exceptions in which the disclosure of the information is not allowed on some grounds like posing a threat to India’s security, confidential information, or violating the privacy of a person etc., But if some part of the application does not hit the section 8 and 9 then it can be allowed to furnish as laid in section 10 which talks about the partial disclosure of information. Section 11 talks about disclosing information related to third-party transactions where the third person’s privacy is essential; it can only be revealed if it is in more public interest. Sections 12 to 14 discuss the role of the Central Information Commission, and sections 15 to 17 discuss the role played by the State information commission.
APPEALS AND PENALTIES
Suppose the concerned CPIO does not sufficiently provide the information within 30 days of receiving the application. In that case, an appeal can be preferred as the first appeal to the foremost appellate authority, and here the time limit can be extended only in exception, l circumstances.
Suppose the applicant is not even satisfied by the reply of the first appellate authority (FAA). In that case, a second appeal can be preferred to the central information commission within ninety days of receiving the information. This period can be extended if sufficient reasons exist to condone the delay in filing the second appeal.
Section 20 talks about the penalty imposed on the CPIOs for noncompliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, and it penalizes 250 rupees per day. Still, a cap of 25000 rupees is placed on the maximum penalty imposed.
ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN RTI
The judiciary has played an active role in[4] the expansion of the Right to information because it has given a liberal interpretation to the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution as held in one case by the supreme court that all official Act done in a public way by public servants falls within the Right to information[5] also in one more case it was held that disclosure of information must be the norm and the secrecy must be an exception[6]. There was one more case where the Right of voters to know the details about the contesting candidate was recognized. In one more point, the Right to broadcast signals was recognized as the Right under RTI in a landmark case[7]. So the judiciary has been Active regarding the Right to information as they have occasionally given the meaning interpretations.
USES OF RTI
In one case, an application was filed by a school teacher asking for the records. The reason for it was her cut in salary by the school, but the PIO cited the dismissal of the files as the reason to dismiss the application. In the appeal, the CIC held that the PIO must be diligent enough to keep the records in place, and they have to find the information back or reconstruct it and furnish it to the applicant[8].
The salary of a Government Employee can be asked for. It was discussed in one case where the wife sought the salary slip of her husband, which was denied by the PIO and in appeal, the commission held that the salary paid to a Government Employee is from the tax paid by people, so the wife has every Right as in this case and even the Public to know about the salary details without taking the permission of the concerned public officer.[9]The property details of an Employee are within the meaning of personal information.[10] And it cannot be furnished to the applicant.
In one case,[11] the CIC directed the PIO to provide a copy of the complaint by the minor daughter of the applicant to the child welfare committee; the reason here is that the applicant (wife ) was living separately from her husband, and her children are living with her husband so it is a possibility that the children were under the influence because of which they forwarded the complaint to the CIC.
It was held that wife’s loan deductions and expenditures were within the meaning of personal information, which cannot be shared with the husband[12]. Patients have a right to access their Medical records, whether from Government or private hospitals, under the Right to Information Act, 2005; the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Medical Council Act, 1956.[13] private hospitals need to provide the Medical records of a patient either to him, to his legal representatives or to his blood relatives because sometimes the doctors deny giving the information because they know that they might have some negligence in treatment. The Right to Access Medical records is now within the meaning of the Right to information.
The information about the terrorist can be given. Still, with some exceptions, like in one case, the details of Afzal guru were asked, and everything was furnished in the application except the name of the authority who fixed the date of the execution and the video recording of the execution. So one can ask for the details of the terrorist, as seen in the above case.[14]
The official address and salary of the public servant are information within the meaning of the Act but any salary deductions; the residential address is an exception to the importance of communication defined in the Act.
IS CHARGESHEET, FIR, MLC AND POST MORTEM REPORT – A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
The crpc nowhere defines the chargesheet as a public document. Still, the completion report prepared by the investigation officer on completing his investigation is submitted to the magistrate. The charge sheet is not recognized as a document anywhere in the Act, but the court’s judgements pronounce it. Also, it varies from case to case.
The relevant information can be provided to the applicant after being separated from the confidential part of the charge sheet. Like the queen empress, the Right to inspect the chargesheet is sometimes recognized.[15]
The MLC report is within the meaning of the information and can be given to the applicant. The FIR report can also be given to the applicant after decanting the confidential part of the FIR, which can hamper the individual’s privacy. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence as the doctor needs to prove the report, so post-mortem information was held to be a public document within the meaning of the Act.[16]
ABUSING RTI
The rights such as the Right to information are misused by people for various reasons like personal animosity, monetary gains, trying to implicate someone in a case, harassment etc falsely. There was one case where the information seeker filed an RTI against the PIO of DIET to access the records, but here the information seeker misplaced the documents himself with the help of an assistant before the filing of the RTI; the CIC was misled by his Action and allowed the penalty imposition of 25000 rupees, but later on the discovery of the truth the information seeker was found to be the responsible person for misplacing the records for which Action was taken against him by the commission.[17]
In one case, the doctor misused the RTI by filing it against many doctors for no reason. The commission then warned him for his illegitimate behaviour.[18] In one more interesting case, the husband filed as many as 50 RTIs against his wife and brothers, asking for their personal information to harass them, in which the service details of the wife, her residential address were asked etc.[19]
In one more case, it was laid that the same RTI request cannot be filed again, and the principle of res judicata applies there also; it becomes a valid reason for refusal to access the information, and no appeal can be preferred against the so decision.
Some RTIs are even so frivolous that one can’t imagine. In one case, the applicant asked whether he could call the IAS and IPS officers donkeys for not doing their duties, the PIO rejected this as it was not information, and the person went to appeal. There he lost and went in a second appeal. An ex parte order was passed upholding the lower bodies’ decisions.[20]
The PIOs also sometimes mock the RTI Act, as seen in some cases.
In one of the cases, the PIO had spent 20 rupees in sending the speed post to the applicant just to inform them that he needed to pay 2 rupees to obtain one copy of the requested document; in one of the cases, an applicant asked the limitation period for the filing of appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the magistrate for which all the concerned PIOs did a lot of work just to answer a straightforward question the answer for which were 30 days or they could have informed him that the applicant can approach the advocate or see the website. Still, they took a different course to complete their formalities.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
- The PIOs must be given training on how to tackle the provisions of the RTI Act because they have the slightest knowledge of the Act, due to which the appellate authorities’ work increases; if the PIOs know the Act, then they will dispose of the application at the early stage and reduce the burden over the higher authorities.
- Like PIOs, the appellate authority must also be included in the penalizing provisions.
- The Public must be made aware of their Right to information as most of the RTI applications are mainly filed for asking for personal details, significantly less the reason being the unawareness of the Public so the Public be given education at the school level and panchayat level.
- Section 23 of the Act provides that courts cannot interfere in RTI-related matters. So this Act must be repealed to involve the courts in the RTI system’s functioning.
- Help centres must be established in all the districts to provide people instant help with filing applications. Like in Bihar, Patna City was the first to develop an information centre for helping people to file RTIs.
- There must be a proper balance kept in mind by authorities when there is a strike between the Right to privacy and the Right to information because every application cannot be rejected on the simple garb of infringing the Right to privacy; the information must be disclosed if it is in the larger public interest.
- Amendment must be made in the Act in section 7, which is silent on one important aspect: that the BPL are exempted from paying the fees of 10 rupees. Still, there is nowhere mention of the exemption to pay a cost for obtaining photocopies of the documents, floppy discs etc.
- The draft 2019 of the digital data protection bill deals with the omission of section 8(1)(j), which will make the RTI Act a weak law because the information then can be easily denied if the amendment is allowed, then the words changed to in section 8(1)(j) will be information which relates to personal information. The debators have criticized this as they argue it was a well-crafted move by the Government to deny giving public servants data, thus undermining the notion of democracy.
- Moreover, provisions must be inserted in the Act, which discusses the penalties and punishments faced by those applicants who try to abuse the RTI Act.
- Asow, some aspects are still outside the ambit of the Act, like the exemption given to the judges and cabinet ministers from disclosing their assets. Judges must also be brought under the purview of the provisions of the Act.
- Currently, there is one RTI portal for the central Government, which only has the authorities of the central Government; it must also have the state Government authorities on the portal because the ordinary person, while filing an RTI application, first has to go through different websites then he will able to apply so there must be one single portal for all the states and central Government authorities. The applicant is sometimes forced to take professional services for filing the application, which is very high and destroys the scope of the Act to provide information at a nominal price.
REFERENCES
- The right to information act, 2005, S. 8
- The right to information act, S. 9
- The right to information act, S. 2
- Professor Madhabushi Sridhar. RTI use and absue
- Dr. S.R Maheshwari: Open Government in India, p. 3
ANCHIT GOYAL
CAMPUS LAW CENTRE
[1] universal declaration of human rights, resolution, 217 (III)
[2] UNGA resolution 2200 A (XXI)
[3] Dr. S.R Maheshwari: Open Government in India, p. 3
[4] Marital Rape: Cross Jurisdictional Analysis and Need for Reform. https://www.jetir.org/view?paper=JETIR2107672
[5] State of U.P v. raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 (India)
[6] S.P.Gupta v. Union Of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (India)
[7] Secretary, Ministry of I & B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC page 161 (India)
[8] Asha rani v. Dte. Of education, Delhi file no. CIC/AD/A/2012/003170-SA 13.3.2014
[9] Jyoti Sherawat v. Home (general) dept., GNCTD CIC/AD/A/2012/003341- SA, 7.1.2014
[10] M.C ghatak v. Directorate of training & technical education, GNCTD file no. CIC/AD/A/2013?001541SA 25 september,, 2014
[11] Vinita Das v. child welfare committee GNCTD no. CIC/DS/A/2013/001973SA 3 october, 2014
[12] dr. Dheeraj kapoor v. Directorate of health services GNCTD, delhi no.CIC/SA/A/2014/000494 29.10.2014
[13] nisha priya bhatia v. Institute of human behaviour and allied sciences IHB & AS, GNCTD file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001681-SA, decided on 24.07.2014
[14] paras nath singh v. Tihar jail no. CIC/SS/A/2013002083 SA
[15] queen empress v. aumugam and ors. (1897) ILR 20 mad 189
[16] union of india through director, ministry of personnel, PG & pension v. central information commissioner, (2009)
[17] mr x b. district institute of education and training CIC/AD/A/2012/001195-SA decided on 30.9.2014
[18] dr. X maulana azad Medical college and health and family welfare dept. CIC/DS/A/2013/002561-SA decided on 1.10.2014
[19] mr x. v dte of education, GNCTD CIC/AD/A/2013/001666-SA
[20] RKJK v. department of legislation CIC/SA/A/2014/000429