COMMENTS & VIEWS - R.T.I. ACT-2005

I stand by my statement. May be the N.G.Os. the activists, the mighty and the powerful getting the information/documents they want by agitating the Act. The common information seeker is rarely, if ever, gets so lucky. Out of the seven such cases that have come to my notice not a single applicant was lucky enough to get the requested information/documents, correct and complete in all respects. What he gains in the bargain is : the wrath and fury of the mighty Public authority and harassed for his audacity to seek-information from those who never cease to believe that they are not at all accountable for their acts to anybody. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Government records are in great shambles and disarray- records-room is virtually an Augean stable- and to search any document and information stored therein is akin to searching a needle in the haystack. Since there is absolutely no accountability, whatsoever, who would like even to rummage around let alone diligently search the requested relevant information/documents for nothing. In the referenced case, more than a year rolls by NOT a scrap of relevant material, document and information has been made available to the Appellant by the Public Information Officer of the Public authority of a Central Government autonomous body- the custodian of the requested records and information.. The Central Information Commissioner in his alluded order on the 2nd Appeal of the information seeker advises the applicant to help locate the records and information, and (closes the appeal?) at the Commission’s end. The Public authority cleverly attempts to evade the responsibility by misinterpreting these orders to mean that the applicant information seeker must provide them copies of certain hypothetical documents of unspecified description which, he neither has nor is supposed to have for the simple reason that the custodian of all manner of such records and documents is also the same Public authority from which the information and the requested documents are being sought and not the information seeker himself. While there is no provision of any such quid-pro-quos in the Act, which simply mandates to provide all the requested information and documents, not otherwise specifically barred, on payment of the prescribed fees and charges, the authorities that be arrogate to themselves all powers to bully and harass the information seeker and deny him the sought information and documents with impunity in spite of the Law. It is learnt that the grossly aggrieved Information-seeker in the case has since submitted an application for Special Leave to Review the Order to the Chief Information Commissioner. However, if by any chance, his application for special leave to review the order filed with the Chief Information Commissioner fails to get the consideration it richly deserves against such a blatant injustice then it could be the end of the road for the information seeker. The crowning irony is: Instead of providing the requested records and information as mandated under the Act, the custodian of the records and the information i.e. the concerned public authority it-self is asking for something-not even vaguely specified- the documents and information from the information seeker himself. For the reasons better known to him only, the Central Information commissioner finds nothing wrong in it, considers such a move “reasonable” and, in the ultimate analysis, absolves the custodian from his bounden duty and responsibility of providing the requested documents and information and, slams, for good, the doors of justice on the poor information seeker. Poorer by a few hundred rupees and more frustrated than ever before he ends up inviting the wrath and fury of the officers of the concerned Public Authority for his audacity to seek information/documents from them by agitating the Act as the already hugely hostile and immensely infuriated mighty public authority gets still more hostile against the information seeker who is then punished for the sin of requesting for information and documents so very vital and important for him. He does not have deep pockets to follow it up in the courts of law.
Ours is the most difficult country for getting justice even if one has been wronged. Whether it is so because of or in spite of all those empowering Laws; only God knows. If you feel that you have been rubbed on the wrong side by an executive action, your best bet is to suffer in silence and never ever invite still more trouble by agitating the appropriate Law.
The above is not an isolated case. Quite a few have walked along this path and suffered the similar fate. In fact, as pointed out above, barring those filed by the N.G.Os, powerful and influential persons, politicians, activists and organizations, almost every other filed by some Nobodies have been similarly fated and have a similar sordid story to narrate.
Once the activist late H.D.Shourie of Common Cause invited victims who suffered injustice at the hands of consumer courts to narrate their stories to him and was astounded to find that there were so many who lost only because they could not observe a few trivial formalities and technicalities. Is there any other Sourie around to compile such a list of ill-fated information-seekers who strove hard to get justice from the Information Commissions only to be greeted by disappointment after a frustrating experience of treading a labyrinthine course in quest for justice under the much touted “ Right to Information Act- 2005?
-SANJOG MAHESHWARI