8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

1/36

RTI ACT 2005 : A BANE OR A

BLESSING?

Presented by :

Ekta Suri

Anirban ChakrabortyVishal Mohla

Sumit Gupta

Swati Karki

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

2/36

OBJECTIVES

To set out a practical regime of right to information for

citizens

To secure access to information under the control ofpublic authorities

To promote transparency and accountability in theworking of every public authority

To contain corruption

To increase citizens awareness and ability to exercisetheir other rights

To equip them to participate meaningfully in thedevelopment process

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

3/36

COVERAGE

Covers all PUBLIC AUTHORITIES which means:

Any body constituted under the Constitution or a law made

by Parliament or State Legislatures.

Any body constituted by a notification or order issued by

the Central and State Governments.

Any body owned, controlled or substantially financed bythe Central Government or the State Government.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

4/36

EXCLUSIONS

Intelligence and security organizationsestablished by the Central or StateGovernments as notified from time to time

However, information relating to allegedcorruption or human rights violations is not

exempted from disclosure.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

5/36

Introduction

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

6/36

History Of The Right To Information Act

Right to information Act 2005 is the result of the struggle, efforts

and movements by many activists. That includes:

The famous Mazdoor Kissan Shakti Sangathan movement in may

1990 led by Smt. Aruna Roy.

The attempts of Shri Harsh Mandar, the then divisionalcommissioner of Bilaspur (MP) in 1996,to throw open the registers

of employment exchange and records of public distribution systems

to the citizens.

The agitation led by Anna Hazare in Maharashtra in 2001. The agitation by an NGO in a small place like Bhillangana block in

Tehri, Garhwal.

After years of such efforts Right to Information Act 2005(RTI) was

passed.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

7/36

The Need For The Right To Information

Without information, people cannot adequately exercise their

rights as citizens or make informed choices.

The free flow of information in India remains severely restricted by

three factors:

The legislative framework includes several pieces of restrictive legislation,

such as the Official Secrets Act, 1923; The pervasive culture of secrecy and arrogance within the bureaucracy;

The low levels of literacy and rights awareness amongst India's people.

RTI empowers individual citizens to requisition

information. Hence without necessarily forming

pressure groups or associations, it puts power

directly into the hands of the foundation of

democracy- the Citizen

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

8/36

Applicability

The Act applies both to Central and State Governments and all

public authorities. A public authority (sec. 2(h)) which is bound to furnish

information means any authority or body or institution of self-

government established or constituted

(a) by or under the Constitution,(b) by any other law made by Parliament,

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature,

(d) by a notification issued or order made by the appropriate

Government ; and

Includes any (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed,

(ii) non-government organization substantially financed - which, in

clauses (a) to (d) are all, directly or indirectly funded by the

appropriate Government.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

9/36

RTI Act 2005Applicability:

It extends to whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir -

[Section 1(2)]

Definition of information - (Section 2(f))

It means any material in any form including records,

memos, e-mails, opinion, advises, press release, circulars,

orders, log-book ,contracts, reports, papers, samples,models, data materials in any electronic form.

Definition of right to information (Section 2j)

It includes the right to:

Inspect works, documents, records;

Take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;

Take certified sample of materials;

Obtain information of print out, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in

any other electronic mode.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

10/36

Obligations of Public Authorities

Proactive disclosure(Sec 4)

Particulars of the organization, its functions and duties;

Procedure followed in its decision making process

Norms set out for the discharge of its functions;

Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records

used by its employees for the discharge of its functions,

Arrangement for consultation with or representation by

the public, in policy formulation/implementation;

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

11/36

Obligations of Public Authorities

Proactive disclosure(Sec 4)

Advice given by the boards, councils, committees etc.

Directory of its officers and employees

Budget allocated

Details of the implementation of subsidy programmes

Particulars of recipients of concessions, permits etc.

Such information as may be prescribed

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

12/36

Obligations of Public Authorities

Designation of PIOs etc.

Designate Public Information Officer to provide

information to applicants

Also to designate APIOs at sub-divisional/district level

No bar on the number of such PIOs/APIOs Designate appellate authority for the first appeal within

the public authority

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

13/36

Obligations of Public Authorities

Publication of all relevant facts relating to important

policies and decisions

Provide reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial

decisions to affected persons

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

14/36

Who can apply for information - (Section 3)

Any person who is a citizen can apply for information regardless age, gender orlocation within the Union of India.

Time limit for getting the information - [Section 7(1)]

i) 30 days from the date of application

ii) 48 hours concerning the life and liberty

of a personiii) If relates to third party then time limit will be 40 days - maximum period plus

time given to the Party to make representation - (Section11)

Grounds of rejection of application- [Section 7(8)]

i) If it is covered by exemption from disclosure- (Section 8)

ii) If it infringes copy right of any person other than the state - (Section 9)Exceeding the time limit for providing information as prescribed amounts torefusal

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

15/36

What is not open to disclosure - (Section 8)

The following are exempted from disclosure:

i) Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty

and integrity of India, the society, strategic, scientific or economic interests

of the state relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence.

ii) Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any

court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt

of court.

iii) Information, the disclosure of which would came a breach privilege of

parliament or the State legislature.

iv) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual

property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of

a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public

interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

v) Information available to a person in this fiduciary relationship, unless the

competent authority is satisfied that the large interest warrants the

disclosure of such information.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

16/36

Cont..

vi) Information received in confidence from foreign Government.vii) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life physical

safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance

given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.

viii) Information which would impede the process of investigation

apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

ix) Cabinet papers including records, of deliberation of the Council of

Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.

x) Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of

which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would

cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

xi) Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority

may allow access to information, if public interest is disclosed outweighs

the harm to the protected interests.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

17/36

Whether appealable against refusal- (Section 19)Refusal or deemed refusal of application is appealable before CentralInformation Commission.

First Appeal :

First appeal to the officer senior in rank to the PIO within 30 days from theexpiry of the time limit or from the date of receipt of the decision.

Second Appeal :To Central Information Commission or State Information Commission within 90days of the receipt of the order of First Appeal.

Third Party Appeal :

Against PIOs decision within 30 days before first Appeal Authority and within90 days of the decision on the first appeal before appropriate InformationCommission.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

18/36

Penalty for non-furnishing of information - (Section 20)

Errant PIO will be liable to fine Rs. 250 per day but not exceeding

Rs. 25,000 for: Not accepting an application

Delaying information without reasonable cause

Giving incorrect, incomplete and misleading information

Destroying the information that has been requested

Obstructing furnishing of information in any manner

CIC/SIC empowered to impose penalty on PIO. They can also

recommend disciplinary action against an erring PIO.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

19/36

Section 18 of the act empowers CIC and also SICs to enquire into

complaints against Public Authority, Public InformationOfficer [PIO] and First Appellate Authority [FAA].

Complaint under section 18 of RTI Act

PROCEDURE TO LODGE COMPLAINTI. CIC and some of SICs have prescribed minimum information or papers that

must be submitted with the complaint.

II. CIC does not charge any fee for complaints. Some SICs charge fees for this

purpose.

III. There is no time limit for lodging complaint, but it is advisable to lodge the

same within reasonable time of happening of cause for complaint.

IV. Information Commissions are vested with powers of Civil Courts in respect ofsummoning, enforcing attendance, giving evidence on oath, producing

records, etc.

V. CIC/SICs are flooded with appeals/complaints and there is huge pendency.

Thus it may take 12 to 36 months before complaint is heard.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

20/36

Removal of difficulties

Central Government empowered to issue

orders to remove difficulties in theimplementation of the Act.(Sec. 30)

Af h i d i f RTI A 2005 i d l h b

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

21/36

After the introduction of RTI Act, 2005 certain development has been

marked in the society:

1. It has made administration more accountable to people

2. It has reduced the gap between administration and people3. It has made people aware of administrative decision-making

4. It facilitates better delivery of goods and services to people by civil servants

5. It facilitates intelligent and constructive criticism of administration

6. It has increased peoples participation in administration

7. It has promoted public interest by discouraging arbitrariness in administrative

decision making

8. It has reduced the scope for corruption in public administration

9. It upholds the democratic ideology by promoting openness and transparency

in administration

10. It has made administration more responsive to the requirements of the

people

11. It has reduced the abuse of authority by the public servants

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

22/36

Advantages of the act:

Greater transparency

Democratisation of information

and knowledge

Reduction in corruption

Promotion of Citizen-Governmentpartnership

Greater Accountability

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

23/36

RTI success stories

Madhu Bhaduri of Parivartan, applied forinformation related to water reforms beingundertaken by the Delhi Jal Board.

One initial question led to accessing copies of

4,000 pages of documents which exposed the roleof the World Bank in blatantly pressurising theDelhi government to privatise the management ofdrinking water distribution.

Eventually, under intense pressure from citizensgroups, the Delhi government and the World Bankhad to withdraw their plan.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

24/36

A state transport bus service in Konkan, which wassuspended by Maharashtra State Road TransportCorporation (MSRTC), but was restarted following asuccessful appeal by affected villages.

The villagers had sought the reason for suspension ofservices. MSRTC officials had replied that the lossesincurred in running of the bus, had led to suspension ofservices.

The villagers then asked for the definition of loss

according to MSRTC, which revealed that the service infact was making a profit.

Realising this, the officials re-started the service

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

25/36

The Central Information Commission (CIC) in New Delhi has asked the

Rajasthan High Court to revisit a number of provisions framed by it

pertaining to the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The commission passed the order in response to an appeal by a Mumbai-based RTI

activist, Sunil Ahya. Ahya sought to know the reasons why the Rajasthan HC

framed certain rules under the Rajasthan Right to Information (High Court andSubordinate Courts) Rules, 2006, which he contended, were contrary to significant

provisions of the original act.

Significant regulations which were brought to light stipulate that the applicant has

to attach a self-attested photograph to the application and has to make severaldeclarations in his plea, including a statement that the motive for obtaining such

information is proper and legal. Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda

Mishra noted that these rules are not in conformity with the provisions of the

Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

26/36

Cont.

Further, the rules of the Rajasthan HC in Section 5 (1) hold that ifthe requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction ofthe authorised person, it shall be conveyed to the applicant in FormC as early as practicable.

The original rules, however, stipulate that if the information is not

available with public information officer, he should transfer theapplication to the relevant public authority.

Goregaon resident Ahya approached the commission after he wasdenied information regarding the reasons for framing these rules.

The panel noted, Section 28 of the RTI Act vests the power tomake rules in the competent authority in order to carry out the

provisions of the Act; it does not give any power to the competentauthority to frame rules to restrict the rights conferred by the Act.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

27/36

Loopholes in the act

Concerned officers are taking the undue advantage of the loopholes

for not providing the requested information as these bureaucrats

dont want a transparent system in place for their vested interests

Section 26 of the act states the appropriate Government may

develop and organize programmes to advance public understanding

of the Act. However various surveys done by the media and other

organizations indicate that awareness about the RTI act is very low

among the citizens. The awareness levels amongst the disadvantaged

sections like women, rural population and SC/ST/OBC is particularly

low as per media reports.

In a country with a more than 1 billion population, there are just 10

CICsto perform this gigantic task

First Appellate Authority is not accountable for his wrong judgment

LOOPHOLES IN COMPLAINT REDRESSAL

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

28/36

Public Information Officer provides NO / INCOMPLETE information

Applicant appeals to First appellate authority

First Appellate Authority passes an order on the lines of Public

Information Officer

As Public Information Officer is his subordinate officer or

sometimes First Appellate Authority does not pass any order instipulated time

Applicant appeals to CIC and CIC keeps the cases in abeyance as

there is no time limit to dispose off the case

LOOPHOLES IN COMPLAINT REDRESSAL

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

29/36

The scope of the Act been limited to governmentdepartments alone.

Lack of adequate staff has hit the Central InformationCommission, resulting in about 23,000 pending Right toInformation (RTI) appeals.

Past few years have seen an exponential rise in the numberof RTI whistleblowers being attacked, threatened or even

killed. the RTI application form requires the applicant toprovide their permanent address, photo identification andfather/spouse names .The availability of these details makesthe applicant vulnerable to attacks.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

30/36

Role Of Central Information Commission

(CIC) :How it Obstructs justice

In a bizarre judgment, CIC ruled that one could not ask for information which can be repliedin the form of a yes or no.

In another such case the commission ruled that you cannot ask any questions which startedwith why, when, whether. One does not find such provisions in the RTI Act.

In another case, CIC did not give the applicant a chance to present his case. CIC disposes ofhalf the cases without hearing the applicants. RTI rules clearly lay down that every applicanthas to be heard before deciding his case.

CIC argued that since it is a quasi-judicial body, it is not bound by theprinciples of natural justice and, hence, need not hear applicants.

The problem is that the information commissioners, being former babus, werenever in the habit of hearing out people before taking decisions. CIC,therefore, needs to be tamed.

f k h d

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

31/36

Future of RTI: Tasks Ahead

Proactive and Suo motu Disclosure of Information

Under Section 4 of the Act, all the Public Authorities are required to make proactivedisclosure of information. The issue is how to present and capture the relevant information thatcan be of use to the stakeholders for realizing their rights. The information should be disclosedon suo motu basis so that a citizen does not have to resort to the provisions of the RTI Act.

In spite of explicit time-frame (120 days following the enactment of the Act) specified for theimplementation of this important provision, the enactment thus far has largely been adhoc,

varied, and parochially interpreted.

Promote Information LiteracyThe Act empowers every citizen to seek information and to gain ideas and acquire new

knowledge to improve quality of life as well as to participate in the effective governance of

public authorities.Under Section 26 of the Act, provisions have been made for advancement of understanding

of the public through education and training programmes.The task is challenging, as less than10 per cent of the poor have some awareness about the law on RTI and the manner in which itcould be used by them to claim for their entitlements.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

32/36

RTI is indeed peoples ACT

Example: How powerful file noting can be

DDAS DUPLICITYWhen 150 jhuggis were demolished in Mayur Vihar in September 2005, the DDA

said no land was available to resettle them. However, file notings revealed that700 plots of land had actually been developed by DDA in Kondli to resettle them.The land instead of passed on to the poor people it has been allotted, wasdiverted to the land mafia for commercial purposes.

DELHI JAL BOARD PROJECTFile notings of VK Gupta, executive engineer, Delhi Jal Board and then additionalceo, Ranbir Singh, showed how the World Bank (WB) favoured Price WaterhouseCoopers (PWC) in awarding the contract to prepare the study for the Delhi Waterand Sewage Project. Six finalists had to be short-listed for the bidding. But Guptasfile notings show that PWC was in the short list even though there were ninecompanies ahead of it. To accommodate PWC, WB had stipulated that at least oneof the finalists be from a developing country, a criteria only met by PWC.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

33/36

On 20 July 2006 the Union Cabinet amended theRight to Information Act 2005 to exclude the filenoting by the government officials from its

purview: The Right to Information Act carries an exemption clause,Section 8, under which file notings on a broad list of subjectsare excluded from public purview.

the Government sought to exempt all notings except thoserelating to social and development issues from the purview

of the Act.The bureaucratic resistance to the disclosure of such facts

was on the ground that it will 'put pressure' on officialdecisions.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

34/36

This created a furor among RTI activist for it was

clearly mutilation of RTI law . Against the proposed amendment social activist

Anna Hazare began his fast unto death on 9August 2006 in Alandi . He ended his fast on 19

August 2006, after the government agreed tochange its earlier decision.

It constituted a significant victory for the peopleof India for the Government was forced towithdraw the illiberal amendments to the Rightto Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

C l i

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

35/36

Conclusion

Enactment of the Right to Information Act has enabled India to:

Move from an opaque and arbitrary system of government to the

beginning of an era where there will be greater transparency

Empower the ordinary citizen as a true centre of power paving way for

national progress

If we want that the Indian citizens shall have the right to information in

true sense the loop holes must be rectified.

To conclude: The problem does not lie with the Act. The Indian law is

said to be among the more progressive RTI laws enacted by more than

65 countries. The problem lies with its interpretation.

8/2/2019 RTI ACT 2005 (2)

36/36