SUGGESTIONS TO GOVT ON RTI

Date: 01-01-2009

Shri K. N. Erendra Kumar,
Dy. Director,
Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
Room No. 222 Parliament House Annexe,
New Delhi 110001
rs-cpers@sansad.nic.in

Respected Sir,

Memorandum on The Right to Information Act 2005

I refer to your advertisement inviting suggestions on above act. I humbly convey my suggestions for kind consideration of the Committee:

1. Locating PIO & FAA is difficult and time consuming. For State govts. I suggest that PIO of District Collector’s office should be designated as APIO for all public authorities [P.A.] of the concerned State. He should redirect the application to the correct PIO after referring the information sought. He should also accept first appeals pertaining to the State public authorities. [State Bank of India has designated all its branch heads as ACPIO and he accepts RTI applications, fee and also appeals. Thus the information seeker need not waste his time and money in locating PIO or FAA. ]
2. All States should have common formats for application, first appeal and second appeal/complaint.
3. Payment of fee and charges is next big problem. Govt. should come out with RTI stamps of Re 1/-, Rs.5/- and Rs.10/- and all states and central govt P.A. should accept the same. Alternatively IPO should be made one of the modes of payment by all State govts and IPO should be in the name of “Public Information Officer”. At present name of payee of IPO, DD etc are resulting in lot of delay, cost and inconvenience.
4. I have found that when the applicant of one state applies to PIO of another state, the reply is at times given in the language of the state of the PIO. The applicant may not be knowing language of that state. Hence it should be made compulsory to reply in English or Hindi when ever applicant belongs to different state, if he so requests.
5. Penalty provision should be provided for First Appellate Authority [FAA] also. At present in most of the cases, he shields and concurs with the PIO without application of mind.
6. It should be made mandatory for all central govt public authorities to designate all post offices as ACPIO. At present only few of central govt ministries/undertakings have this facility.
7. Baring few of the banks etc, majority of public authorities have not provided for email IDs of PIO or FAA. It should be made mandatory to have separate email ID for PIO & FAA for each of public authority upto District level at least.
8. Abolishing of filing fee is also suggested, which will reduce lot of work-load for accounting of fees in PA and will reduce inconvenience to applicants. This will facilitate filing of applications by email.
9. State Information Commissions and CIC should have search facility for their decisions as we have for Supreme Court on their websites.


10 Bihar type model be adopted for all States and Central Govts.
11. Tracking system of second appeal/complaints at CIC/SICs should be introduced for the appellants/complainants.
12. It is suggested that if a person is threatened or victimised or coerced for using RTI, it should be treated as cognizable offence against culprit.
13. A time limit of 90 days should be fixed for finally deciding second appeal or complaint by CIC/SIC. Delay beyond 90 days should entitle appellant/complainant Rs.5/- per day of delay. [Banks are required to mandatorily pay interest for delay in collection of cheques/bills beyond certain days. ]
14. At present, assistant is not permitted during physical verification of records under RTI. This adversely affects semi or illiterates or the persons not knowing language of the record. Hence it should be made compulsory for the PIO to permit one or two assistants during verification if requested by the applicant.
15. CIC/SICs should be advised to publish interalia on their website Operating Expenses [non-capital expenditure] incurred per decision in a year as well as average number of days in which copy of decision is dispatched from date of receipt of appeal or complaint. This will indicate efficiency and cost of operation of CIC/SICs. At present these data are not worked out by CIC and majority of SICs.
16. Replies by scanning requested documents should also be introduced if requested by the applicant.
17. Photocopies of the record should be compulsorily provided by stating that it is provided under RTI Act and that it is the true copy of the relevant record, under the signature and seal of the custodian of record or the PIO. Uncertified copies being supplied, may not be valid in courts or other govt. offices.
18. RTI Act should be amended to mandate that the public authority should seek prior approval of head of the public authority and then 3 member bench of Central Information Commission, Delhi before invoking writ jurisdiction of High or Supreme Court against rulings of CIC or SICs. Thus unnecessary litigation can be avoided and there would be finality to the case without wastage of time and public money.
19. CIC should follow work distribution pattern as that of High or Supreme Courts. Present system encourages monopoly of ICs.
20. It is necessary to hold PIO and FAA responsible for their decisions or delay or no decisions and penalized compulsorily in terms of this Act. At present these officers do not care for SICs/CIC and take information seekers for a ride. SICs/CIC are very lenient in imposing penalties. This has resulted in huge back log at CIC/SICs.
21. More and more non-bureaucrats should be inducted as Information Commissioners at CIC and SICs and their performance should be reviewed and published on yearly basis by committee of ICs of CIC and SICs to be nominated by PMO.