RTI -FAQ

 Source: CA Sahib S Choudhary

India is a democratic Republic country and democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to curtail corruption and to hold government machinery accountable to the governed.

We select our representatives through elections but we should have the same right in respect of getting information of government functioning, which our representatives have.

To achieve this right, The Right to information Act 2005 was enacted on 15^th June 2005 in the fifty sixth year of Republic of India. 

Under The RTI Act the information, which can not be denied to parliament or a state legislature, should also be provided to every citizen of India. 

I am hereby trying to give answers to some frequently asked questions which may be useful for every citizen of India in respect of RTI Act 2005.


Q 1: Why was RTI Act 2005 enacted?
Ans: Our country is a democratic country. In a democratic country it is necessary to have transparency and accountability in functioning of the government departments. It is the main objective of the enactment of Right to information Act, 2005.

Q. 2: Who is covered by RTI Act?
Ans: RTI Act covers every public authority.

Q 3: What do you mean by public authority?
Ans: Public authority means any authority or body or institution of self governed establishment or constituted:

1. By or under the Constitution;
2. By any other law made by State Legislature;
3. By notification issued or order made by the appropriate government

And it also includes body owned, controlled and substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government, and a non government organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government.

Q 4: Who can seek for information?
Ans: Every citizen of India can seek for information

Q 5: Can a legal entity seek for information?
Ans: No, a legal entity cannot ask for information. It can be supplied only to a citizen of India.


Q 6: To whom the request for information is to be made?
Ans: Request is to be made to the Public information officer (PIO) or Assistance Public Information Officer (APIO) of the concerned authority.

Q 7: Is there any Application form for request for information?
Ans: No, there is no application form. Person who seeks for information should make the application in plain paper.

Q 8: What is the mode of application?
Ans: Application should be in writing; it may be through an e-mail or posted through registered post.

Q 9: What should be the language of request?
Ans: Application can be made in Hindi, English or official language of the area of concerned public authority.

Q 10: Is there any fee for application?
Ans: Yes, Fees for application is Rs. 10/-, however if application is made by a BPL (below poverty line) citizen, fees is not payable but proof of BPL to be attached with application.

Q 11: Is there any further cost of information?
Ans: Yes, Rate of further fees is as follows:

1. Rupees two (Rs. 2/-) for each page ( in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied;
2. Actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper;
3. Actual cost or price for samples or models;
4. For information provided in diskette or floppy, rupees fifty (Rs. 50/-) per diskette or floppy; and
5. 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.

A citizen has a right to inspect the records of a public authority. For inspection of records, the public authority shall charge no fee for the first hour. But a fee of rupees five (Rs. 5/-) for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof) shall be charged.

Q 12: What information can be provided to the applicant?
Ans: Information of any material in any form. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form. It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force.

Q 13: Which information is exempted from Right to information Act 2005?

Ans: Following information can not be provided under RTI Act 2005:
a)     information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
b)     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;
c)      information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
d)     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;
e)     information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
f)        information received in confidence from foreign Government;
g)     information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
h)      information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
i)        cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
j)        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 unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided, that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.


Q 14: Is it necessary to disclose the information suo motu by the public authority?
Ans: Following information is necessary to disclose suo motu by public authority under section 4(1) (b):

1. The particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
2. The powers and duties of its officers and employees;
3. The procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
4. The norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
5. The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
6. A statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
7. The particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
8. A statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
9. Directory of its officers and employees;
10. The monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
11. The budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
12. The manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
13. Particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
14. Details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
15. The particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
16. The names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers.
17. Such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter these publications every year.

Q 15: Whether it is necessary to give the reason for requesting information?
Ans: No, person requesting for the information is not required to give the reason for requesting information
.
Q 16: What will happen if request is made to wrong PIO?
Ans: Application should be transferred to proper PIO within 5 days with intimation to the applicant.

Q 17: What is the time limit to dispose the application?
Ans: It is the duty of PIO to dispose the application within thirty days by way of either providing the information or rejecting the application. However where the information is sought for life or liberty of a person, the information shall be provided within 48 hours.
If information is related to third party, such information cannot be provided before giving the notice to the concerned party, and if the third party files an appeal against the decision of PIO, till the disposal of appeal. In other words, time taken in the proceeding with third party is to be excluded from calculation of above mentioned 30 days time.
If application is received through PIO or transferred from other PIO additional time of 5 days is allowed.

Q 18: What will happen if PIO fails to provide information in the stipulated time?
Ans: If PIO fails to provide the information in the stipulated time then it shall be presumed that PIO has refused the request and the applicant can file the appeal to first appellate authority.

Q 19: Whether it is mandatory to give the reason for rejection of application?
Ans: Yes, It is mandatory for PIO to give the reason of rejection of the application.

Q 20: Can information provided relate to third party?
Ans: Except Trade & Commercial secrets, information relating to third party can be provided. However PIO should give a written notice to the third party and keep in mind the submission made by the third party before disclosing the same.

Q 21: What is First Appellate Authority?
Ans: Any person who does not receive the decision in stipulated time or aggrieved by the decision of PIO may prefer first appeal within 30 days to senior rank officer of the PIO of concerned public authority. However where an application is rejected by the PIO, it is the duty of PIO to communicate the particular of appellate authority to the applicant.

Q 22: How can the applicants get the particular of appellate authority if application is not rejected and the stipulated time for decision laps?
Ans: It is the duty of all public authority to designate the first appellate authority and publish their particulars along with the particulars of PIO.

Q 23: What is the Second Appellate Authority?
Ans: If first appellate authority fails to pass an order in the prescribed time or not satisfied with the order of first appellate authority, applicant may prefer second appeal to central information commission or state information commission as applicable within 90 days.

Q 24: What is the time limit for the appellate authority to dispose the appeal?
Ans: Appeal should be disposed within 45 days.

Q 25: Whether an appellate authority can admit the appeal after the stipulated time?
Ans: If appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal then he may admit the appeal after expiry of stipulated time.

Q 26: Whether third party can file an appeal against the decision of PIO in respect of disclosing the third party information?
Ans: Yes, third party can file appeal to first appellate authority and if required to second appellate authority.

Q 27: Which information should contain in the appeal before the central information commission?
Ans: Following information should be contained in the appeal:

• Name and address of the appellant;
• Name and address of the Public Information Officer against the decision of

Whom the appeal is preferred;

• brief facts leading to the appeal;
• if the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, particulars of the application, including number and date and name and address of the Public
• particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the appeal is

Preferred;

• Information Officer to whom the application was made;
• Prayer or relief sought;
• Grounds for prayer or relief;
• Verification by the appellant; and
• Any other information, which the Commission may deem necessary for deciding the appeal.
•  

Q 28: What documents should be accompanied with the appeal made to the central information commission?
Ans: Following documents should be accompanied with the appeal:

• Self-attested copies of the orders or documents against which appeal is made;
• copies of the documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal,  and
• An index of the documents referred to in the appeal.

--

Training for officials in Right to Information Act

 Source:The Hindu,25th March,2010,Special Correspondent 

PERAMBALUR: Collector M. Vijayakumar on Tuesday inaugurated a two-day training programme for the district officials on the Right to Information Act 2005 being provided by the Anna Institute of Management.

The Collector said that several officials including District Revenue Officer S.Palanisamy, PA (General) to Collector M. Devadas and others attended the programme. Mr Vijayakumar said that a large number of people in the district had received information in the last four years under the Act.

The Gujarat H C has directed to arrest all the 33 accused-

Source:Anupam Chakravartty : indianexpress.:1 April,2010

Vadodara : The Gujarat High Court has directed the CID (Economic Offences) to arrest all the 33 accused beneficiaries in the Rs 70-crore scam in the Karamsad Cooperative Bank at Vallabh Vidyanagar by the end of next month. The court of Justice M R Shah dismissed CID’s plea to extend the investigation for another two months and asked the action taken report to be tabled by April 30.

After a seven-year long wait, the CID (Economic offences) took over the investigation from Vidyanagar police station and arrested nine people in the case, including five of the bank’s directors. Among them were former state minister Dilip Patel and former BJP MP Natu Patel. “Around 33 loan-takers are yet to be arrested as many of them have left the country,” said Deputy Superintendent of Police B J Jadeja.

However, Hitesh Patel, who had reportedly filed an RTI application seeking details of borrowers and guarantors, says that if borrowers are booked for misappropriation of Rs 70 crore from the bank, then the guarantors have to be nabbed. The RTI  reply shows that the arrests could go well beyond 240.

Meanwhile, in a February 26 ruling in the same case, Justice Shah had directed the CID to investigate the reasons for the bank’s liquidation. “But a more detailed investigation is required to find out why the Karamsad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited has gone into liquidation,” Shah said while passing an oral order.

According to the CID (Economic Offences), policemen from Anand and Ahmedabad, who investigated the issue in a span of six months found that the trustees involved their own relatives. “They gave loans to various parties, who had produced forged documents,” said a CID officer.

A report made by the Anand Economic Offences Detection Cell says that the bank gave loans violating guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. “The Bank also invested Rs 9 crore in Home Trade, which was against the directives of the Reserve Bank of India. The bank also extended loans to Keval Land Developers and Ghanshyam Patel on the basis of bogus documents,” wrote Inspector B J Pathan in the report made to the Gujarat High Court when the issue had come to the light.

Further, four persons, including a managing director of a farm implement manufacturing company based in Palanpur of Sabarkantha district, and his brother, were reportedly booked by the CID for producing fake bills for farm implements that were never bought, but approved by the bank trustees.

More than three lakh cases pending in Bombay HC: RTI

Source:PTI, Apr 2, 2010, 12.53pm IST



THANE: Over three lakh cases are pending in the Bombay High Court, according to an information revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The details, dated till December 31, 2009 were given after local social worker Omprakash Sharma sought information in this regard.

According to the RTI reply statement, there were as many as 3,38,183 cases were pending in the Bombay High Court and the sanctioned number judges in the court is 75 while the working strength presently is 63.

Also, the figures of the division bench vary as per the assignment of judicial work. During the present assignment there are ten division benches at Bombay, three at Nagpur, three at Aurangabad and one at Goa, it said.

Normally, the assignment is changed five times in a year and matters are being placed in due sequence before the respective benches, it stated.

Sharma has demanded the Union law ministry that additional benches be set up in Nanded, Jalgaon and Pune to clear the pendency.

In India, deadly backlash against freedom of information activists

By Daniel Pepper
Correspondent, CSMonitor

(AXcess News) New Delhi, India -

When Ajay Kumar asked New Delhi authorities last fall why a local politician had authorized the construction of private houses and shops on public land, he didn't imagine the question would land him in the hospital.

The activist had inquired using India's 2005 Right to Information (RTI) Act, which allows any citizen to ask for information from any level of government, from village leaders to the office of the prime minister. It presents a cultural sea change in India, where for more than 60 years state bureaucrats have acted more like colonial masters than servants of the people.

Mr. Kumar was stonewalled by the public information officer at the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, so he followed procedure and appealed to a higher-level public information office in the MCD. When he still heard nothing back, he went to the federal authorities, the Central Information Commission, which directed the MCD together with the police to jointly inspect the property.

But when Kumar arrived on site in January, he was attacked by a mob of two dozen that backed the local politician.

"Neither the police nor the people helped me," says Kumar, who was beaten in the head repeatedly by an iron rod, leaving him unconscious and bleeding profusely. Kumar is now pursuing the matter in court.
Despite the attack, Kumar says, "RTI is the only tool that can bring an end to a corruption in India. Previously there was no point in asking [for information] because the applications were not replied to. At least now, since 2005, these public authorities are in some way compelled to answer queries of the public. It is a starting point."

Kumar is optimistic that he will one day see justice, but critics say attacks like these are becoming increasingly common. In the past two months two respected information activists have been killed, and reports are emerging of many others who are threatened, bullied, and intimidated to silence their inquiries into government misconduct.

Attacks will likely increase

The RTI Act is among the most robust for information seekers around the world, and its strength is becoming clear in the backlash against people seeking to expose corruption.

"What has happened with the RTI Act is that it is threatening people in power," says Colin Gonzalves, a Supreme Court lawyer and director of the New Delhi-based Human Rights Law Network. "We cannot underestimate how hostile the administration is to the implementation to this Act - not just the politicians but also the judiciary. RTI empowers people to say that the administration is the servant of the people that you are answerable to us. The physical attacks on the people I think are going to increase over the years."

In rural areas, the act is often utilized to uncover scams involving federal- and state-funded initiatives to provide employment, housing, food, and other services to the poorest segments of society. "You ask for a list of beneficiaries," says prominent New Delhi-based RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal. "Then you check that list and find out that many peope are dead and the list is bogus."

According to a study published last July by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information, and funded in part by the Google Foundation, in the first two-and-a-half years since RTI went into effect about 400,000 applications for information were filed from rural areas and 1.6 million from urban areas.
While much of the information requested ought to be public in the first place, like the size of a particular budget for a school or road, or why a particular applicant received a job or promotion, most government bureaucrats in India habitually keep such matters under lock and key.

Right to information - on paper

With the RTI Act, failure to furnish applicants their information within 30 days can result in steep fines. This week one RTI applicant was awarded 100,000 rupees, or about $2,200, by the Central Information Commission in compensation for delays.

At a meeting in the capital of the poverty-stricken northern Indian state of Bihar last November, 49 activists spoke about fighting trumped-up arrest warrants and other attempts to silence their efforts. None of the warrants have stood up under scrutiny, they claim. On Feb. 14 in Bihar, well-known RTI activist Shashidhar Mishra was shot dead by unidentified gunmen on motorcycles at the entrance of his home. He had been working to expose local welfare schemes.

A month before, in the tech hub of Pune, a couple hours outside Mumbai, another activist, Satish Shetty, was killed while on his morning walk. Mr. Shetty had a record of exposing land scams in his area. Shetty had received threats on his life and requested police protection, though none was provided. The High Court in Bombay asked the state government to investigate the killing.

The upswing of violence has dire implications to Shailesh Gandhi, a commissioner with the Central Information Commission, the country's highest authority for RTI applications.

"It tells me that the rule of law is almost absent. The truth is that powerful people feel there is no law," Mr. Gandhi says.

Gandhi and his handful of interns, whom he pays from his own pocket, managed to go through almost 6,000 files last year. In the past 14 months he's penalized 120 public information offices for not providing information in a timely fashion, or at all. He hopes to start cracking the whip even harder, he says. "Penalties are important."

Last month headlines blazed across India that the New Delhi High Court ruled in favor of a RTI applicants who sought information about the office of India's Supreme Court Chief Justice, such as his personal assets and decisions relating the appointment of lower-court judges. On Monday, the Supreme Court moved to challenge the order.

And just this last week, a disagreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the leader of the ruling National Congress Party Sonia Gandhi became public after the Mr. Singh advocated amending RTI Act, something activists strongly oppose, fearing it might be watered down.
Shailesh Gandhi agrees: "I am 100 percent convinced that any changes in the Act would be to the citizen's detriment."