SUGGESTIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CENTRAL RTI RULES

Date: 15-12-2010 by email

To,
Shri R.K. Girdhar
Under Secretary [RTI]
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel Training
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Email ID usrti-dopt@nic.in

Dear Sir,

Subject: Amendment to Central Govt. RTI Rules.

This bears reference to OM Nr. 113512008-IR dated 10-12-2010. I thank you for inviting suggestion from stake holders on proposed amendment to Central Govt. RTI Rules.

It appears to me that Central Govt. is trying to puncture RTI Act through procedural hurdles and complications in RTI rules, as some state govts have done by clandestinely weakening SICs. While I object to proposed changes, I humbly append below my suggestions for kind consideration, if at all Govt. is bent upon to amend the rules:

01. Ceiling of 250 words should be limited to “Particulars of Information required” part of application [as provided in Karnataka RTI Rules as amended on 17-03-2008 for 150 words], because applicant is at times required to mention back ground or references so that it is easy for CPIO to locate information. In addition applicant has to mention date, details of payment of application fee and enclosures etc. He has to declare citizenship and also mode of mailing information to him by CPIO. He has also to mention that this application is under RTI Act 2005.

02. It is also suggested that if limit of 250 words exceeds, CPIO should reply queries up to first 250 words rather than rejecting application for this reason.

03. I suggest that if application seeks information on more than one subject, CPIO should reply for first subject mentioned instead of rejecting application for multi-subjects. There could be dispute about whether subject matter is one or more between CPIO and applicant.

04. Gujarat Govt. has provided for payment of application fee by revenue stamps [in addition to court fee stamps, non-judicial stamps, IPO etc] vide its notification dated 22-03-2010. I suggest that revenue stamps should be made one of the modes for payment of application fee in central rules. This will solve problem of name of payee of DD or IPO etc also.

05. You have suggested format for first appeal in rule 7. However it should also be provided that “for the purpose of removing any doubt it is hereby clarified that the 'forms', as prescribed under these rules, need not be in authorized pre-printed stationery, but any format neatly typed, handwritten or in electronic form which covers essential details described in the form shall be valid.” as stated in aforesaid Gujarat RTI rules of 22-03-2010.

06. Rule 5f [postal charges] should be deleted, since it will create large number of operational problems for public authorities and RTI users and will prove expensive for both as even for petty amount, CPIO will require payment. A speed post or registered envelope requires minimum Rs.25/- and hence if reply is required by speed or registered post, for each application, applicant will be required to pay Rs.15/- for which he will incur Rs.25/- on postage plus bank charges. In addition CPIO will expend Rs.25/- to intimate additional postal charges. This will amount to penny wise, pound foolish. It will also delay supply of information.

07. Rule 5g [Machine Hiring Charges] should be deleted, as this rule will also open Pandora box and CPIOs and applicants will be busy in sorting out exact amount, wasting good public money on trivial issues. It is difficult to calculate hiring charges. This can be misused by CPIO to dodge information or over burden applicants. The rule is patently absurd and anti-citizen aimed at complicating the matter.

08. There is need to fix time limit on CIC to decide appeals and complaints. It could be ideally 90 or 120 days. Delay beyond this period should entitle appellant compensation of Rs.50/- per day. This will be a step towards concept of Govt. Service Guarantee Act as introduced by Delhi and M.P States and is being actively considered by Bihar Govt.

09. In rule 8 and 10 self attested copies of documents should be prescribed instead of ‘duly authenticated and verified’. FAA and CIC can always get authenticated copies from CPIO during hearing.

10. Rule 5 [a] it should be A-4 size instead of A-3. Normally A-4 size is used.

11. A limit of 50 free pages for BPL applicants should be prescribed under rule 5. More than 50 pages should attract normal charges prescribed in rule 5. There are reports that provision of free supply of information to BPL applicants is being misused.

12. Money order in favour of CPIO should be approved as mode of payment for other charges and application fee under rule 6, since demand drafts for exact amount of other charges are costly. At times IPOs are not available for exact amount of charges.

13. Words ‘Central Public Information Officer’ should be included in rule 6 [a], otherwise CPIO may not accept cash. All public authorities do not have ACPIO in all their offices.

14. ‘Banker’s Cheque’ word in rule 6[b] is causing confusion and applicants are sending their own cheques drawn on banks. It should be replaced with “ pay order, local cheque issued by banks”

15. It should be made mandatory for first appellate authority to inform to appellant along with his decision, reasons for delaying decision by extra 15 days beyond 30 days, which he is presently required to record in writing as per section 19.6 of RTI Act.

16. In rules 14 [1] period should be 15 days, as 7 days are too short to prepare and travel.

17. It should be also provided that CPIO may waive application fee in his discretion, since recovery of application fee of Rs.10/- will require more than Rs.100/- by way of postal charges, man hours and cost of stationery. DoPT has reportedly advised recently on this score to all public authorities.

18. It should also be provided in rule 5 that fees for providing information [other charges] exceeding Rs.50/- should only be recovered from applicant. Usually Govt. expends Rs.100/- by way of postal charges, man hours and stationery for obtaining petty amount of say Rs.10 or Rs.20 or Rs.50. In addition applicant incurs another Rs.50/- for paying small amount towards postal charges, bank commission, visits to post office and banks etc. This process also causes delay in supply of information. This is more than justified when Govt. is wasting huge sums of good public money in scams, frauds, committees, and huge avoidable wasteful expenses. Let Govt. waive petty amount for benefit of common men and his fundamental rights Govt. will in turn save double the amount used for recovery of small charges. Some banks and few Gujarat offices follow this practice of not insisting for petty amount for supply of information.

19. Audio/video recording of proceedings at FAA and CIC should be permitted at appellant’s cost and request.

20. To avoid filing of writs in High Court against decisions of CIC and to avoid congestion in courts as per National Litigation Policy of Govt. of India, there should be provision of review of decisions of single Information Commissioner by larger or full bench of CIC.

I quote: The State is not only under an obligation to respect rights of the citizen, but is equally under an obligation to ensure conditions under which rights can be meaningfully and effectively enjoyed by one and all.

Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah