RTI Queries Don't Affect Govt. Work

RTI Queries Don't Affect Govt. Work The time spent by government officials replying to RTI is so little that it cannot be a pretext for them to shirk that task In August 2011, the Supreme Court made an observation which had some unintended consequences on the Right to Information (RTI) process. The judgement by Justice R.V. Raveendran is turning out to be a seemingly legitimate excuse for government officials to restrict information. Aditya Bandopadhyay went to court when the Central Board of Secondary Education declined to provide his examination answer sheets under the RTI Act. While the court allowed access to answer sheets, it also observed that the cherished right to information should not affect administrative efficiency. In his judgement, Justice R.V. Raveendran said: “The nation does not want a scenario where 75 percent of the staff of public authorities spends 75 percent of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising information furnishing at the cost of their normal and regular duties.” Government officials are now using this excuse with increasing frequency saying that even the court agrees. Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi says 75 percent government staff spending 75 percent of their time on giving information would mean 56 percent (0.75 X 0.75) of their total time spent only on replying to RTI queries. Gandhi says that at the most optimistic estimate not more than one crore RTI applications are likely to be received by all public authorities across the country in 2012. The average time to attend to each would be less than three hours. That means no more than three crore hours spent by all officials.  Assuming that an average government employee works for just six hours a day for 200 days a year, it would mean he would work for a total of 1,200 hours in a year. That means 25,000 (3 crore divided by 1,200) employees would be required full time. The Centre and all state governments have about 1.2 crore employees. So, the total time spent by government employees on replying to RTI queries would be 0.208 percent (25,000 divided by 12,000,000). In other words, no more than 4.6 percent officials are spending 4.6 percent of their time on giving information. This is based on conservative assumptions. Surely, government officials work for more than six hours a day! Doesn’t look like they have much space to hide.

Payment of fee under the RTI Act by Indian Postal Order – Dopt order

No.F.10/9/2008-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training

North Block. New Delhi
Dated April 26, 2011

Subject:- Payment of fee under the RTI Act by Indian Postal Order.

The undersigned is directed to say that the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 provide that a person seeking information under the RTI Act. 2005 can make payment of fee for obtaining information by cash or demand draft or banker’s cheque or Indian Postal Order. It has been brought to the notice of this Deportment that some pubic authorities do not accept fee through the Indian Postal Orders.

2. As stated above, one of the approved modes of payment of fee under the Rules is through Indian Postal Order. Refusal to accept tee through the IPO may be treated as refusal to accept the application. It may result into imposition of penalty by the Central Information Commission on the concerned Central Pubic Information Officer under Section 20 of the Act. All the pubic authorities should, therefore. ensure that payment of fee by IPO is not denied.

3. Contents of this OM may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

(K.G.Verma)
Director

GOVERNMRNT NOTIFIED EMENDMENT TO RTI RULRS
File No. 113512008-IR


Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

Department of Personnel Training

North Block, New Delhi-110001

Dated 10th December, 2010.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject : Amendment to RTI Rules.

The Government proposes to notify Right to Information Rules in supersession of the existing rules, namely, the Right to Information(Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 and the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. Comments if any, on the proposed Rules may be sent at e-mail address, usrti-dovt@pic.in by ~ 7 ' December, 2010.

(R.K. Girdhar)

US (RT1)

1

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART-II, SECTION 3,SUB-SECTION (i)]

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, dated the , 2010

NOTIFICATION

G.S.R…..- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) and in supersession of the Central Information

Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 and the Right to Information(Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby makes thefollowing rules, namely:-

1. Short title and commencement. – (1) These rules may be called the Right

to Information Rules, 2010.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official

Gazette.

2. Definitions.– In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) "Act" means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005);

(b) "Commission" means the Central Information Commission as constituted under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act.

(c) "First Appellate Authority" means an officer in the public authority who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer to whom an appeal under sub-section (1) of section 19 lies;

(d) "Government" means the Central Government;

(e) "Registrar" mean officers of the Commission so designated and unless otherwise requires includes an Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar;

(f) "Registry" means the Registry of the Commission comprising the Registrar

General, Registrar, Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar or Deputy Registrar;

(g) "section" means a section of the Act;

(h) all other words and expressions used herein but not defined in the rules shall

have the same meanings assigned to them in the Act.

3. Appointment of Secretary to the Commission: The Government shall appoint an officer not below the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India as Secretary to the Commission who shall be the Chief Executive Officer and Registrar General of the Commission.

4. Request for Information: A person who desires to obtain any information from a public authority under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, shall pay an application fee of Rs. 10/- to the public authority alongwith the application;

Provided that the request for information shall relate only to one subject matter and shall be limited to two hundred and fifty words, excluding the address of the Central Public Information Officer and the address of the applicant.

5. Fees for providing information: Fee for providing information underSection 4(4), Section 7 (1) and Section 7 (5), as the case may be, shall be chargedat the following rates:

(a) rupees two for each page in A-3 size or smaller size paper;

(b) actual cost or price of a copy in larger size paper;

(c ) actual cost or price for samples or models;

(d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and fee of rupees five for

each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof);

(e) for information provided in diskette or floppy, rupees fifty per diskette or

floppy;

(f) for information provided in printed form, at the price fixed for such

publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the

publication;

(g) the actual amount spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other

equipment, if any, to supply information;

(h) Postal charges, in excess of rupees ten, if any, involved in supply of information.

Provided that no Fee shall be charged under this rule from the persons who

are below poverty line as may be determined by respective State Governments.

6. Payment of fee: Fee under these rules shall be paid by way of:

(a) cash, to the public authority or to the Central Assistant Public Information Officer of the public authority , as the case may be, against proper receipt; or

(b) demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to theAccounts Officer of the public authority; or

(c) electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the public authority, if facility for receiving fee through electronic means is available with the public authority:

Provided that a public authority may accept fee by any other mode of payment.

7. Appeal to the first Appellate Authority: A person aggrieved by any order passed by the Central Public Information Officer or non-disposal of his application by the Central Public Information Officer within the prescribed time, may file an appeal to the first Appellate Authority in the format as given in the Appendix.

8. Documents to accompany first appeal to the first Appellate Authority:

Every appeal made to the first Appellate Authority shall be accompanied by the

following documents, duly authenticated and verified:

(i) Copy of the application submitted to the Central Public Information Officer;

(ii)Copy of the reply, if any, of the Central Public Information Officer.

9. Appeal to the Commission: A person aggrieved by any order passed by the

First Appellate Authority or by non-disposal of his appeal by the First Appellate

Authority, may file an appeal to the Commission in the format as given in the

Appendix.

10. Documents to accompany Appeal to Commission: Every Appeal made to

the Commission shall be accompanied by the following documents, duly

authenticated and verified:

(i) Copy of the application submitted to the Central Public Information Officer;

(ii) Copy of the reply, if any, of the Central Public Information Officer;

(iii) Copy of the appeal made to the First Appellate Authority;

(iv) Copy of the Order, if any, of the First Appellate Authority;

(v) Copies of other documents relied upon by the Appellant and referred to in

the Appeal;

(vi) An index of the documents referred to in the Appeal.

11. Admission of appeals: (1) On receipt of an appeal, if the Commission is

satisfied that it is a fit case for consideration, it may admit such appeal; but where the Commission is not so satisfied, it may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and after recording its reasons, reject the appeal.

(2) The Commission shall not admit an appeal unless it is satisfied that the

appellant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the Act.

(3) For the purposes of sub-rule (2), a person shall be deemed to have availed of

all the remedies available to him under the Act:

(a) if he had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the First

Appellate Authority or any other person competent to pass order on such appeal

had made a final order on the appeal; or

(b) where no final order has been made by the First Appellate Authority with

regard to the appeal preferred, and a period of 45 days from the date on which

such appeal was preferred has expired.

12. Procedure for deciding appeals: The Commission, while deciding an

appeal may,

(i) receive oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned or

interested person;

(ii) peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof;

(iii) inquire through authorized officer further details or facts;

(iv) hear Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority, or such person againstwhose action the appeal is made, as the case may be;

(v) hear third party; and

(vi) receive evidence on affidavits from Central Public Information Officer ,Central Assistant Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and such person against whom the appeal lies or the third party.

13. Amendment or withdrawal of an Appeal: The Commission may allow a

prayer for any amendment or withdrawal of an Appeal during the course of hearing, if such a prayer is made by the Appellant on an application made in writing.

Provided that such request shall not be entertained by the Commission after

the matter has been finally heard or a decision or order has been pronounced by the

Commission.

14. Personal presence of the appellant before the Commission:

(1) The appellant shall be informed of the date of hearing at least seven clear days

before that date.

(2) The appellant may, at his discretion, be present in person or through his duly

authorized representative or, if permitted by the commission, through video

conferencing, at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commission.

(3) Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to which

the appellant is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission,

then, the Commission may afford the appellant another opportunity of being heard

before a final decision is taken or take any other appropriate action as it may deem

fit.

15. Presentation by the Public Authority: The public authority may authorize

any representative or any of its officers to present its case.

16. Abatement of an Appeal / Complaint: The proceedings pending before the

Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant.

17. Service of notice by Commission: Notice by name to be issued by the

Commission may be served in any of the following modes, namely:-

(i) service by the party itself;

(ii) by hand delivery (dasti) through Process Server;

(iii) by registered post with acknowledgement due;

(iv) by electronic mail in case electronic address is available.

18. Order of the Commission: An order of the Commission shall be in writing and issued under the seal of the Commission duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission for this purpose.

19. Compliance of the order of the Commission: The head of a public authority shall ensure that an order passed by the Commission, unless varied or stayed by a validly passed order, is complied with and compliance report filed with the Commission within the time limit specified by the Commission, or within 60 days if no such limit is specified.

20. Recovery of Penalty and Payment of Compensation: (1) If a penalty is

imposed by the Commission on a Central Public Information Officer as per the

provisions of the Act and if the Commission requires a Public Authority to

compensate a person for any loss or detriment suffered, an order duly authenticated

by the Registrar shall be served on the Public Authority for recovery of penalty and

payment of compensation.

(2) The Public Authority shall deduct the amount of penalty in such installments as may be allowed by the Commission in its Order and authenticated by the Registrar from the monetary payments due to such person against whom penalty has been imposed by the Commission and compensation shall be paid as per order of the Commission.

21. Recommendation for Disciplinary Action: If disciplinary action is

recommended by the Commission on a Central Public Information Officer as per

the provisions of the Act, an order duly authenticated by the Registrar shall be

served on the Public Authority to initiate such action and the action taken on such

order will be communicated to the Registrar within the time specified by the

Commission in its order.

F.No.1/35/2009-IR

(Rajeev Kapoor)

Joint Secretary

APPENDIX

FORMAT OF APPEAL

1. Name and address of the appellant

2. Name and address of the Central Public Information Officer

to whom the application was addressed.

3. Name and address of the Central Public Information Officer

who gave reply to the application.

4. Name and address of the First Appellate Authority who

decided the First Appeal.

5. Particulars of the application.

6. Particulars of the order(s) including number, if any, against

which the appeal is preferred.

7. Brief facts leading to the appeal.

8. Prayer or relief sought.

9. Grounds for the prayer or relief.

10. Any other information relevant to the appeal

11. Verification / authentication by the appellant

(K V Sridharan)

NOTICES TO INFORMATION OFFICERS FOR IMPROPER RTI INFORMATION

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has issued show-cause notices to a former and an incumbent Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Delhi Government's Social Welfare Department observing that one of them appeared to have provided false information and the other had not supplied complete information within the stipulated 30 days to two RTI applicants seeking details on some officials booked in two corruption cases.

The RTI applications were filed by two representatives of NGO Pratidhi in November 2009 and in May this year.

As part of the reply to the first application, the then PIO K. K. Bhalla had informed that departmental inquiry had been initiated against the officials who were arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi Government on charges of misappropriation of funds meant for children's homes and other institutions.

However, in reply to the second application in July this year, incumbent PIO O.P. Bhatti informed that as per the record available with the vigilance branch, no departmental inquiry was being initiated against the accused officials. The PIO further informed that the officials suspended after being booked in corruption cases were later reinstated. Asked about any policy regarding posting of tainted officials, it was informed that there was no particular criterion.

On the grounds of non-receipt of proper information from the PIO, the second applicant, Subhash Baghel, then approached the CIC.

Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi in his order directed Mr. Bhatti to provide information about the status of the departmental enquiries before this August 30.

Issuing show-cause notice to the previous PIO, Mr. Gandhi said: “It appears that K. K. Bhalla has provided false information to the complainant.”

The Information Commissioner also issued show-cause notice to Mr. Bhatti observing that he was responsible for not supplying complete information within the stipulated 30 days.

Both officials have been asked to appear before the Commission on October 1.

- The Hindu, Dated – 26.08.2010

Delay in Speed Post delivery

'Alert citizen uses RTI to nail postal delay'

MUMBAI: Millions crib about snail mail but one aggrieved consumer used the Right To Information Act (RTI) to hold the postal department accountable for delay and to refund aggrieved customers promptly.

Thanks to Dahisar resident Kishanlal Mittal, the Secretary, Department of Posts, has been told to issue instructions to make it mandatory for every Speed Post Centre in the country to prominently display its delivery norms. The instructions came in an order by Central Information Commissioner (CIC) Deepak Sandhu on January 27, 2010.

The bureaucrat heading the postal department has also been directed to ensure that there are adequate telephone lines and manpower available to take complaints on telephone. Emails should be responded to promptly with an assurance that the complaint will be resolved in 7-10 days, says the order.

To ensure that the customer is not made to run from pillar to post for the refund, the order says that the booking centre should inform the complainant regarding his refund and ensure that he\she does not have to make multiple trips to the post office to lodge a complaint and claim refund.

Mittal's experience is that 90 % of parcels sent by Speed Post reach late and that one has to wait for six months to get a refund for delayed delivery.

He is not the only one to say that. Last year, Mahim resident Milind Mulay found out using the RTI that 27,774 Speed Post items booked from the Western suburbs of Mumbai did not reach addresses in Mumbai in time.

Last August, when an important document Mittal had sent to Kanpur by Speed Post reached four days late, he used the RTI to seek answers for questions pertaining to delivery norms of Speed Post, grievance redressal mechanism and refund in case of delayed delivery.

Since he was not satisfied by the answers he got from the central principal information officer, Mittal appealed to the first appellate authority. Here, too, he was disappointed with the reply and the matter went to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi.

On January 27, a hearing was held through video conferencing, where Mittal was represented by his son, Girish. Girish complained that Speed Post centres across the country do not display their delivery norms.

Agreeing with him, CIC Deepak Sandhu said that there is a wide gap between promise and performance when it comes to Speed Post. She noted in her order that while the customer is charged the full fees for an upgraded service, the exact nature of the service is not made transparent to him\her.

The secretary, department of posts, has been told to ensure compliance of the order in accordance with section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.

How the law works

The secretary, department of posts, has been told by the Central Information Commissioner Deepak Sandhu to ensure compliance of her order in accordance with section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005. This section says: ``If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought, in its opinion, to be taken for promoting such conformity.''

Courtesy: Times of India