HOW THE MUCH-TOUTED R.T.I. ACT-2005 DOES NOT WORK

Here follows the contents of a letter written by an info. seeker to the Activist and the Public Cause Research Foundation Chairman, Magsaysay Award winner  Kejariwal , lamenting how the spirit and the letter of the Act was trifled with by none other than its very custodians just to save the skin of the offending Public Authority.  Though the letter was written a year back, yet it still holds good as the matters relating to the RTI Act have been steadily deteriorating, in its practical application, instead of improving, and the very relevant provisions of the Act are also being sought to be diluted by the foot-dragging Officialdom, who has since managed to obtain the blessings of the person, no less than the Prime Minister himself, for carrying out their nefarious designs. It is reported that the timely intervention of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi had then saved the day for the much-harassed Info. seeker against the atrocities of the public authorities. Still they have many tricks up their dirty sleeves to render the Act redundant - A toothless and claw-less paper tiger.  Pl. read on:

To

            The Chairperson &  RTI Awards Team,

            Public Cause Research Foundation,

            A-119 Kaushmbi, Ghaziabad 201010 , U.P.

REF: Your No.FK/FB/CIC-ANT/2009/143 dt. 16-06-09  recd. on26-06-09.

            At the outset, my heartfelt congrats. on organizing National Award Ceremony 2009. Grateful to you for affording me an opportunity to offer my views on the Complaint case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00247 u/s 18 of the RTI Act. disposed of by the Information Commissioner A.N.Tiwari.

Howlers:

1. Complaint u/s 18 (e) of the R.T.I.Act was misconstrued as 2^nd Appeal u/s 19(3) of the Act by the I.C., who could not make out the difference between the two in spite of the inscription:  “ COMPLAINT UNDER THE R.T.I. ACT-2008” in the bold letters at the top of the document - Complaint dated 12-10-2007- (Photocopy enclosed)

.

2.  A very simple case in which the I.C was expected only to determine (a)Whether the Public Authority, represented by the P.I.O. and the 1^st Appellate Authority, has or has not supplied the correct, complete and to the point information and the certified copies of the documents requested for by the Info. Seeker (No big deal considering the fact that had  they done the needful already, the occasion to file the complaint would not have arisen).

3. Since very clearly there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the public authority which gave rise to filing of the Complaint, the Information Commissioner was required to simply (a) Issue necessary directions to the Public Authority to supply the information and the copies of the requested documents which were very clearly not barred u/s 8 of the Act. (b) Impose upon the Public Information Officer the prescribed penalty besides recommending disciplinary action against him under the service rules applicable to him, inter-alia for (i) not furnishing info. within the specified time,(ii) malafidely denying the request for info.  and copies of documents, (iii) knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete and misleading information (iv) destroying information which was the subject matter of the request (v) obstructing in furnishing the information and (vi) for all too obvious dereliction of duty. Instead of taking the obvious course of action as prescribed under the Act, the Information Commissioner conveniently glosses over the P.I.O’s blatant negligence and callousness in not supplying the required info. and documents, relies upon his white lie of not-receiving the Application though sent by the SPEED POST and to cap it all smugly suggests that  the Complainant should visit the Public Authority’s office in a wild goose chase- search for the documents etc in the custody of the Public authority which their own P.I.O. was unable to locate in his own office.!  And that too in a detestably condescending style enacts a show of considerate attitude, grants to the Complainant a meaningless favour: “ However, considering the fact that (appellant?) seems to be skeptical  about the responses from the public authority, he shall be entitled to inspect the documents held by the public authority.” knowing fully well that the Complainant has requested the copy of the document(s) which the P.I.O had not given to him and there is no way that they will ever be shown to the Complainant by the apparently unwilling, reluctant and arrogant  Public Authority on his visit to their office. If copies of the documents and information are requested they should be granted. Why should the  Complainant himself is required to unearth and locate them at a place where even their custodian has failed to trace them out or rather feigns ignorance about thei whereabouts. In a different context, in another Complaint case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01329 against the same Public Authority- who perennially remains in the denial when it comes to supplying the requested  info or documents in their custody- ,  the undersigned grossly aggrieved and exasperated  Complainant, vide para 6 of his 2^nd Appeal cum Complaint dt. 07 March 09, inter-alia, had to submit to the same I.C: “That the Respondents themselves and not, the Complainant-the Information seeker- are the custodian of the requested documents and information and as such asking the latter to visit the office for the purpose of their search, or otherwise, instead of promptly making their duly certified copies available to him after charging the prescribed fee as mandated under the Act, to say the least, is most preposterous, ridiculous, irrelevant, incompetent and does not make any sense.”

4.  What takes the cake is that the Information Commissioner, an ex-bureaucrat of long standing himself, does not know the difference between loose sheets of Pension Audit Register and the P.P.O.,   how the all-too-famous and familiar document known as Pension Payment Order (P.P.O.) looks like, and could not tell it from the loose sheets of the copies of a few pages of Pension Audit Register provided by the P.I.O when requested to provide a certified copy of the P.P.O. If he was so ridiculously feigning ignorance about Pension Payment Order, quite a common document, then for what purpose and for whose benefit?  The uncomfortable questions scream for answer. And why such important official document should not be readily traceable? Even if it was not readily traceable, as alleged, then what prevented the Public Authority to recreate it from all other available collateral documents? And what were the compelling reasons to faking it with Pension Audit Register sheets? Was not a period more than two years sufficient enough to recreate such a simple document?  What were the immediate compulsions for the Information Commissioner to bail out an hopelessly indefensible P.I.O in this unseemly and untenable manner?  Everybody in the govt. service, except perhaps the P.I.O and, sadly enough in this case, the Information Commissioner knows that the P.P.Os come in   book form and not in loose sheets.

5 Why should any Information Commissioner exceed his brief in such a ridiculous manner just to put out a genuine Info-seeker who has great stakes in a case but does not have the deep pockets to fight it out in the costly law courts?.

6 The Information Commissioner is simply unable to come out of the skin of the bureaucrat he had always been- neither in this case nor in any other case he has decided so far.

My take:

1 The cases reaching to the CIC in  2^nd Appeal/Complaint could just be slashed by more than half their present number, if only the P.I.Os are made to work a little more responsibly and the Information  Commissioners restrict themselves just to determine whether the sought information and documents, if not otherwise barred by section 8 of the Act, have been provided correct and complete to the last details as per the specifications of the Info-seeker and if not promptly hand out deterrent penalties and punishments to the arrogant Public Information Officers, not yet able to get rid of  the colonial  mind-set and  devil- may-care attitude and behaviour.

2. If only the Complaints/Appeals are gone through a little bit more intelligently, there would be no reason for any info. seeker to attend the hearing unless he himself chooses to do so of his own volition for making some extra point(s) not already covered in the Complaint or 2^nd Appeal as the case may be.

  3. Effective Social audit should be the aim of the Act which should be amended in such a way that it ensures it to happen with precision and perfection- the Info-seeker acting as a freelance unpaid Social Auditor helping the Government and the Society by helping himself in his pursuit for Information.  He should be welcome whole-heartedly and assisted by the Information Commissioners in his noble task of setting the Government records and functioning in proper order, streamlining its systems and operations and force them to be transparent and honest in their dealings..

4. Though it is impossible to achieve zero-level corruption in the Govt. departments and corridors of power but some effort should be directed towards it through the Act made as an instrument of Social Audit.

5.  There should be provision for review of a decision given by a single Information Commissioner by a larger bench who should have the powers to countermand   wrong and biased orders/decisions and reprimand the errant and erratic Information Commissioners responsible for such decisions/orders as above.

Thanks and regards,.