247

CHAPTER-VII

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

(a) Conclusion

The Right to Information is a fundamental human right which is made up of

different rights and duties, namely:

Every person’s RIGHT to request information from the government - and even

private bodies in some cases;

The DUTY on the government to provide the requested information, unless

defined exemptions apply; and

The DUTY on the government to proactively disclose information that is of

general public interest without the need for requests from citizens.

The citizen’s Right to Information (RTI) is an essential step in ensuring

transparency and accountability in government systems and processes. When a

government is transparent, there is less chance for corruption and more room for

accountability. That’s why Freedom of Information Acts (FOIAs) is becoming a

standard practice in the international arena. The Right to Information generally

understood as the “right to access information held by public authorities” is not just a

necessity of the citizens; it is a precondition to good governance. To be specific, RTI

makes democracy more vibrant and meaningful and allows citizens to participate in

the governance process of the county. In particular, it empowers ordinary citizens,

especially those in rural areas. When people have RTI they naturally tend to make

more meaningful decisions, raise informed opinions, influence policies affecting their

society and even help shape a more assured future for the next generation.

RTI has been recognised in Sweden for over 200 years. Importantly, however,

over the last ten years it has gained widespread recognition in all regions of the world.

While related legislations were adopted only by 13 countries in 1990, this number has

now grown to 85 and more, and similar such pieces of legislations are under active

consideration in many other countries. In India, Right to Information Act was enacted

in 2005 and since then this law has proved to be a strong weapon in the hands of

248

people, for ensuring transparency in government departments and containing

corruption.

The first RTI law was enacted by Sweden in 1766, largely motivated by the

parliament’s interest in access to information held by the King. The Swedish example

was later followed by the United States (US), which enacted its first law in 1966 and

then by Norway in 1970. The interest in Freedom of Information (FOI) laws took a

leap forward when the US, reeling under the 1974 Watergate scandal, passed a strong

FOI law in 1976, followed by several western democracies enacting their own laws

(France and Netherlands 1978, Australia, New Zealand and Canada 1982, Denmark

1985, Greece 1986, Austria 1987, Italy 1990). By 1990, the number of countries with

FOI laws climbed to 13. A big step forward was the EU Charter of Fundamental

Rights in 2000, which included both freedom of expression and the right of access to

documents. By 2010, more than 85 countries have national-level RTI laws or

regulations in force including the major developing countries like China and India. Of

all these, Mexico has taken the lead with one of the best examples of a well-

functioning FOIA in the world. The law passed in 2002 represents a vital element of

Mexico’s democratic transition, and became a model worldwide. A well competent

governmental body (Instituton Federal de Acceso a la Información) is entrusted with

the responsibility of implementation and overseeing the law. Handling over 200,000

requests in its first five years have resulted in Mexico setting a new international

standard for transparency legislation.

Participation in governance is at the heart of any successful democracy. As

citizens, we need to participate not only at the time of elections but on a day-to-day

basis – when decisions on policy, laws and schemes are being made and projects and

activities are being implemented. Public involvement not only enhances the quality of

governance but also promotes transparency and accountability in government

functioning. But in reality how can citizens take part in governance? How can the

public understand how decisions are being made? How can ordinary people find out

how tax money is being spent, whether public schemes are being properly run or

whether the government is acting honestly and fairly when it makes decisions? How

can government servants be made answerable to the public they are supposed to

249

serve? One way of participating is by exercising the right to access information from

bodies which spend public money or perform public services.

Following the enactment of the Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI Act) in May

2005, all citizens of India now have the Right to Information. The RTI Act recognises

that in a democracy like India, all rights being made available to citizens is simply a

part of normal government functioning because the public have a right to know what

public officials do with their money and in their name. The RTI Act recognises that

the sharing of information by government with citizens is healthy and beneficial to the

functioning of democracy. Secrecy should become a thing of the past; under the RTI

Act, no citizen can now be denied information that elected representatives such as

MLAs and MPs can get from the government. The new law covers not only public

authorities at the Centre but also all the States and local self-governing bodies. This

means that citizens in every village, district, town or city across India can demand

access to information held by public bodies. To date, secrecy has characterised the

functioning of all government bodies in India, but with the RTI Act, the tide has

started to turn. Where the Officials Secret Act 1923 made the disclosure of

information a punishable offence, the RTI Act now requires openness in government.

Giving out government held information to the public used to be a rare exception,

usually at the whim of officers within a public authority, but now the RTI Act gives

all citizens the right to ask questions - and demand answers - about governance and

development issues that affect their lives.

The Act makes it much more difficult for officials to cover up their corrupt

practices. Access to information will help expose poor policymaking which will

contribute to reviving the political, economic and social development of India. One of

the surest ways of ensuring that the RTI Act is properly implemented and serves its

purpose of making the government more responsive, is for all of us to use it

frequently responsibly and effectively. It is with this aim in mind that researcher made

“A Critical Study of the Right to Information Act, 2005” to explain:

(a) Who is covered by the Act?

(b) What information is accessible under the Act?

(c) How information can be accessed in practice?

250

(d) What options people have if they are not provided the information they want?

(e) How people can get involved and ensure that the Act is implemented effectively

to make the government more accountable, efficient and responsive?

Indian democracy has witnessed crises of governance at all levels of decision

making as some key components of democracy viz accountability and transparency in

governance have not received adequate attention. Internal accountability mechanisms

[CBI, CAG, CVC etc] have not functioned effectively as they lack requisite autonomy

and powers, while external accountability viz. social accountability except in some

places has not grown in India. The Right to Information Act has provided an

instrument in the hands of the citizens with which they can fill this accountability gap

by utilization of the Act on large scale.There has been positive impact due to growing

awareness amongst the bureaucrats that the official records can be accessed by

citizens. Despite reluctance to transparency imposed by Right to Information Act,

officers at all levels have to become more careful.

India’s Right to Information Act, 2005 is generally claimed as one of the world’s

best laws with an excellent implementation track record. It is one of the most

empowering and most progressive legislations passed in the post Independent India.

From the day the Act came into force, enlightened citizenry had started using the law

by filing information requests in order get the police to act or get their entitlements of

food grain under public distribution system or expose the corrupt officials. Most

radical provision of the Act is that the information seeker need not to give any reason

for it or prove his locus standi. Yet the task of implementing the law is not without

major challenges. Lack of adequate public awareness, especially in rural areas, lack of

proper system to store and disseminate information, lack of capacity of the Public

Information Officers (PIOs) to deal with the requests, bureaucratic mindset and

attitude etc. are still considered as major obstacles in implementation of the law.

This is an Act for setting out the practical regime of Right to Information for

citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order

to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority, the

constitution of a Central Information Commission and for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto. Thus, Judged in the light of the above yardstick and

251

looking into the comprehensive and elaborate provisions of the Act, the strong points

and shortcomings of the Act are as follows :-

STRONG POINTS

1. The RTI Act is based on good intent. After years of clinging on to and taking

cover of a veil of secrecy granted under the Official Secrets Act,1923 and other

Statutes, the government conceded to open up to the public. The Act has the

potentiality to revolutionize the transparency jurisprudence in India.

2. Supremacy of the Act for public disclosure of information is ingrained through

Sec.8 (1) (j), Sec.8 (2) and Sec.22.

3. It gives voice to the voiceless to express their concern with regard to public

planning and performance.

4. Equality of status and opportunity to all citizens as proposed in Preamble to the

Constitution of India has been granted u/s 3 of this Act.

5. The Act is flatly applicable to all government or non-government bodies and

authorities in the field of public service as defined u/s 2(h).

6. The Act is simple to understand and easy to operate. The information seeker has

only to fill up simple and short prescribed application form without putting any

reason for information sought. The public information officer concerned can

record illiterate person’s verbal request for information u/s 5.

7. As per Sec.7 and Sec.11 request for information is to be disposed of as

expeditiously as possible within a minimum period of 48 hours for information

concerning a person’s life and liberty to a maximum of 40 days for information

relating to any third party.

8. The cost of seeking information is partly –the cost of application to the PIO is

Rs, 10 and that to the first Appellate Authority is Rs.25.The cost of providing

information ranges from a mere Rs.2 per each folio of an A-4 or A-3 size paper,

Rs.50 for a floppy diskette to any reasonable amount to be fixed by PIO

concerned as per requirement of the case.

9. There is a shorter hierarchy chain for disposal of requests for information. From

PIO at the field level, if need be, to First Appellate –a person ranking higher to

PIO in the same office to the second Appellate-“The Information

Commissioner”, the disposal of any request for information is completed within

these three rungs of authority.

252

10. The Central and State Information Commission has been granted complete

autonomy in operation u/s 12 and 15, independent of the direction of the central

government or the concerned state government respectively.

11. The Information Commissions are vested with administrative and quasi-judicial

powers to discharge their statutory functions. While enquiring into any matter

u/s 18, they have the same powers as are vested in a civil court.

12. The absoluteness of authority of the commission has been granted u/s 19(7) and

sec.23.

13. Information provided under the Act may have a course correction effect if some

non–doings and misdoings are found in public functioning.

14. The fear of disclosure of violative and corrupt practices may have wrong-course

prevention effect and clean the system of governance.

15. The application provisions under the Act and the functions of the Commission

are subject to legislative scrutiny and control keeping to the spirit of true healthy

democracy.

SHORTCOMINGS

1. There are many loose ends in the Act ,the phrases used u/s 4(1) (b) for

maintenance of records “subject to availability of resources”, “in a reasonable

time”, “local language”, “cost effective manner” and some parts of sec.(8) for

exemption, sec.(9) for rejections ,sec.(10) for severability and sec.11 for third

party information may create confusion and controversy and may provide flimsy

grounds for refusal of information to the unread and gullible masses that will be

against objective of RTI Act.

2. The Act provides for appointment of Public Information Officers in all public

authority institutions at different levels for free flow of information. There was

delay in such appointments unfortunately even after the lapse of the time limit

mandated by the Act. Moreover, sometimes there is not specific mention of the

Public Information Officers and Assistant Public Information Officers by the

departments thereby confusing the people about whom to address and serve

request seeking the information.

3. Obligations of public authorities as conceived by the Act in form of proactive

disclosure of the information have not been carried out satisfactorily. Various

NGOs and public spirited citizens have raised easy disclosure of relevant

253

information by the public authorities themselves, so that common people are

saved from resorting to the statutory course for seeking the same.

4. There have been grievances of the applicants that information is not provided to

them in their regional language. This is against the statutory spirit contained in s.

6 (1) of the Act which makes it clear that information is to be provided in Hindi

or English or in the official language of the area in which the application is

being made.

5. It might be feasible, but the provision of taking fees for disclosing the

Information seems to be against the spirit of the Right and the Act too. It is quite

paradoxical that a person has to pay for availing information which is a

fundamental human right, which has been consecrated even by the Constitution.

Being a legislation which is socially oriented, it strikes a wrong chord at this

place, by creating a hiatus between people on the economic basis. Information

can be easily accessed by the affluent classes whereas same is not so

comfortable for the students and lower strata of middle class.

6. Logical reasons for the rejection of the requests seeking information are not

being provided as required by s. 7 (8) of the Act. Moreover, exemption clause

contained in s. 8 of the Act is being misused to veil the misdeeds in the name of

secrecy essential for national security, integrity etc. Although the inclusion of a

public interest override is a huge step forward, the fact that the exemptions only

contain a low level harm test requiring that relevant interests are only “harmed”

or “prejudicially affected” could be used to block a lot of applications at the

initial stages.

7. One more difficulty is required to be solved at the earliest. Rule making power

is conferred on the Central Government and State Government simultaneously

and independently. The RTI Act is a central legislation and it has to be enforced

uniformly throughout India. When such is the case, the rule making authority

granted to the State Governments should have been made subject to the rules

which may be made by the Centre and any rule when made by the State if it

conflicts with the Central rule shall have a prior approval of the Central

government. The dichotomy created in the field of rule making power can be

removed by making the power of the State Government to make rules subject to

Central approval either prior to making the rule or thereafter seeking ratification.

Glaring example of the same possibility has been the recent order of the Uttar

254

Pradesh Government including some important public authorities in the Second

Schedule by using the power granted under s. 24 (2) of the Act.

8. Although the Act bestows power upon the CIC and SIC to impose penalties of

Rs. 250 up to Rs. 25000 on erring officials indulging in unreasonable non

disclosure of information. But it does not have such a deterrent effect on the

power wielding officials. However, recommendation for disciplinary action is

seemingly effective but even it is not sufficient for the strict implementations of

the RTI Act, 2005. The Act lacks such teeth which may bite the officials

through the rigours of law and enable the establishment of an accountable and

transparent regime.

9. There is no specific safeguard for the protection of person from the harm he may

suffer after seeking the information through the Act. It should not be forgotten

that if a person seeks information which is potentially harmful for the

authorities’ superior to him, he can be subjected to ill treatment later. For

example, if a student asks for information from the school or college or

university in which he/she is studying, there is every probability that he could be

made to suffer in future because of such a step taken by him/her. There should

be promulgation of some safeguards in this regard, so that one can resort to

using the Act without any fear.

10. The Act points out that the SIC does not have the power for execution of its

decisions. While the SIC has the powers of Civil Court under Section 18 of RTI

Act but it does not have similar powers under Section 19 of RTI Act which can

result in non-compliance of the decisions of SIC. It is to be noted that there is no

provision for contempt proceedings in case of non-compliance of the directions

of SIC. Similarly, there is no provision to realize the penalty if payment is

defaulted and no provision to enforce recommendation for disciplinary action

under Section 20 (2). There should be specific provisions in the Act for ensuring

compliance to the decisions of SICs.

11. The practical over emphasis on bureaucrats manning the commission may tend

to encourage red-tapism by default, as our babus are used to it since long.

Similarly, future employment of Information Commission is not articulated

255

under the Act giving scope for undue bias and affinity hampering their

functioning.

12. State secrecy laws historically and traditionally have proved to be the most

frequent reasons for preventing Right to Information and censorship. As such,

the increasing importance of national security is likely to pose a significant

problem in improving Right to Information.

13. The poor people have limited capacity and strength to fight against public

officials with the help of RTI. However, RTI Act can help to collect

information. But it fails to take any action against the callous and corrupt

officials, as there is no well-structured procedure under the RTI to fix the

allegations against the officials who indulge in the activities of negligence and

corruption.

14. Transforming the official machinery to make all instrumentalities accountable to

the governed is too ambitious a goal. Implementation is to be carried out by the

bureaucracy, whereas their higher echelon would prefer to avoid the quantum

jump in their public accountability demanded by RTI Act. The greatest obstacle

is to make them change their time-old mind-set, a legacy of the British Raj.

15. To sum up, there are no programmes for implementing systemic reforms and no

budget allocations for the purpose. Implementation of RTI Act is therefore

largely limited to responding to RTI Application from citizens.

(b) Suggestions

This thesis titled “A Critical Study of The Right to Information Act,2005”traced

the origin of the Right to Information and argued for the effective implementation of

a freedom of information regime in India in a way that enhances responsive

government and encourages citizen’s participation. A need for openness occurs once a

person understands the connection between an open society and lack of corruption.

OECD statistics show that countries with well-developed legislations on openness

have the tools needed to keep corruption at its lowest level. Information is power. The

very fact that anyone can demand information from government gives a sense of

256

power. Government officials will almost always feel discomfort in sharing

information; this is obvious by continuous efforts to withhold information from the

public. Information initiates change by replacing feelings of confusion and

helplessness with knowledge and truth. It can effectively build trust between citizens

and their public officials. In India, there is a great need to steer away from an elite-

based policy process where only the few enjoy access and only a few have influence

over policy outcomes. Informed citizens act as a check on government’s decisions.

Indian officials have always tended to promise one thing and do another thing or

nothing at all, and people have few means of holding them accountable in the absence

of accurate and timely information. Without the check of an informed citizenry,

“government officials are more likely to make decisions contrary to the public

interest, abuse their authority and engage in corrupt activities.”

The study showed that Indian Constitution and democratic institutions pose no

legal threat to the Right to Information law. The foundations have been laid through

the enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005. Indeed awareness to the need for

information sharing between the citizen and state has already begun to surface.

However, state institutional guarantees remain missing. In addition, the thesis poses

the question whether Indian citizens are ready to utilize information once it is

released. This thesis is being written at a time when there is all prevailing corruption,

mal-administration and huge scams, thereby causing many tensions in the society.

Where is the Indian government that this thesis refers to? It is the contention of this

researcher that once information about government performance is released it will

initiate civil society activity. The reason why there may be a current absence of

participation in some areas may not be because the Indians are unwilling but because

they are incapable of effective participation in all policy areas. Much secrecy and

‘behind-the-door’ policies are not conducive to a civic culture. Civic culture by nature

is the one where people are free to participate. This thesis argues that due to the

absence of access to critical government records and effective RTI implementation,

the Indians remain inhibited in the ability to democratically hold their politicians

accountable. “Openness is something that must be learned, and also something one

“learns to want”. There are ten general principles that any freedom of information

257

system must embrace and the absence of any of these principles constitutes a flaw in

the system1:

* Access to information is a right of everyone (regardless of nationality or

profession).

* Access is the rule – secrecy is the exception!

* The right applies to all public bodies (all institutions funded by the public and

private bodies performing public functions).

* Making requests should be simple, speedy, and free.

* Officials have a duty to assist requestors.

* Refusals must be justified (evidence of demonstrable harm to legitimate

interests, such as national security or privacy should be specifically defined by

law and refusals must clearly state the reasons for withholding the information).

* The public interest takes precedence over secrecy (information about threats

to the environment, health, or human rights, and information revealing

corruption, should be released, given the high public interest in such

information).

* Everyone has the right to appeal an adverse decision.

* Public bodies should proactively publish core information (information

should be current, clear, and in plain language).

* The right should be guaranteed by an independent body (an independent

agency, such as an ombudsperson or commissioner, should be established to

review refusals, promote awareness, and advance the right to access

information).

By the enactment of a Right to Information law in India, the State already has

taken a step towards openness and participation. However, continued secrecy on the

1 . Open Society Justice Initiative, Transparency & Silence: A Survey of Access Information Laws

and Practices in Fourteen Countries (New York: Open Society Institute, 2006), 27.

258

other hand prolongs the cycle of corruption and under-development. India is part of

the international community which has now embraced the right of citizens to access

public information. Indeed the global movement towards information sharing is the

context within which India exists today and must adapt to. The right to access

government records is not a cure for all government problems nor does it guarantee

that citizens will improve policy processes. However, the free flow of information

about government activities is a crucial prerequisite to an engaged citizenry and a

responsive state.

The study showed that Right to Information is a powerful tool that can deliver

significant social benefits. It can provide a strong support to democracy and promote

good governance, by empowering the citizen’s ability to participate effectively and

hold government officials accountable. Rather than just providing information, Right

to Information Act in most of the countries has served to be an effective watchdog

ensuring all those coming in purview of the Act to work in accordance with rules and

regulations, without any irregularities. However, stricter implementation of this law

requires not only political will but also active civil societies, RTI activists and few

key democratic features, such as respect for the rule of law. Currently, the Right to

Information Act, 2005 in India is passing through a decisive phase; much more needs

to be done to facilitate its growth and development. Mere protest against the lack of

implementation of this law alone is not sufficient, one needs to encourage this

initiative taken, for the law to grow and mature. It is with this background that some

of the suggestions to promote the smooth functioning of the Right to Information and

carry out the objectives enshrined in The Right to Information Act, 2005 have

emerged:

1. Mass awareness campaign both at central and state levels. The main objective

should be to increase public awareness; encourage citizen involvement; and

increase transparency within the government. Advertisements, printing and

distribution of booklets, pamphlets, walling, etc. may be resorted to spread the

aims and objectives of RTI among the people.

2. Direct all public authorities and training institutions to incorporate training

module on RTI in all training programmes. Training in RTI Act is largely

confined to Public Information Officers regarding response to RTI Applications

259

from the Citizens. There are no efforts to train the entire bureaucratic

machinery, and there are no efforts towards systemic administrative reforms

essential for enhanced transparency and public accountability. Government has

not organized educational program for the citizens, although Section 26 requires

them to educate the citizens to enable them to use RTI Act.

3. Develop a consensus on a common set of minimum rules that would enable

applicants from residing in one state to apply for information from any other

state, without first having to find, study and understand the rules of each state

and competent authority. The Central Government should provide draft rules to

all the State Governments to ensure uniformity in service conditions of officers /

employees of the Commissions all over the country.

4. A National Coordination Committee (NCC) may be set up under the

chairpersonship of the Chief Information Commissioner with the nodal Union

Ministry, the SICs and representatives of States as members. A provision to this

effect may be made under Section 30 of the Act by way of removing difficulties.

The National Coordination Committee would:

i. Serve as a national platform for effective implementation of the Act,

ii. Document and disseminate best practices in India and elsewhere,

iii. Monitor the creation and functioning of the national portal for Right to

Information,

iv. Review the Rules and Executive orders issued by the appropriate

Governments under the Act,

v. Carry out impact evaluation of the implementation of the Act and

vi. Perform such other relevant functions as may be deemed necessary.

5. The media undeniably has always been the bridge between public agencies and

people. Regarding the implementation of the Right to Information Act too, the

media can play a bridging role. Did people ask for information? If they did, did

they receive information? If not, why? What is the government’s attitude to

providing information to information-seeking citizens? The media can seek

answers to these as well as many other questions to highlight the status of right

to information and to create an atmosphere for more RTI-related exercises. This

260

watchdog role of the media will also reveal the exact character of the state on

the implementation of RTI.

6. Revise curriculum in the law courses, mass communication and journalism at

universities level about the RTI that can enable the students to understand its

significance and conduct the Thesis of the student at the masters’ degree level

on RTI subject. Give an assignment to the student of the law courses, mass

communication and journalism as a project work research on RTI. Maintain the

RTI related materials, books and research documents in libraries or study

centres. Even it should be introduced in the syllabus at high school and college

level education.

7. Spell out specific responsibilities for implementation of specific provisions of

the Act. Central and State Governments have not taken the required

administrative measures for effective implementation of RTI Act. There have

been no visible changes in record keeping, although Section 4(1) (a) requires all

public authorities to change systems and procedures to make public records /

information accessible to citizens.

8. Monitoring the government’s respect for the right to freedom of information

includes monitoring the adoption and implementation of FOI laws if they exist,

as well as all the related laws which have impact on the right to freedom of

information, such as: media, state secrecy, whistleblower and/or privacy laws

besides others. Consecutively, a campaign on the right to access information

should include campaigning against the various laws and practices that prevent

access to information and/or calling for their amendments.

9. E-governance is also an increasingly useful tool for information-sharing. E-

governance uses information and communication technologies to engage

citizens in dialogue and feedback and thereby promote greater participation in

the processes of governance. E-governance aids in streamlining procedures,

standardising rules and improving service delivery to citizens. Major scheme of

Central Government in e-governance with the estimated budget of Rs. 23,000

Crores which aims to computerize all the government records should be

interfaced with Right to Information. This measure will help citizens in getting

information through e mail.

261

10. Under the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission and the State

Information Commissions act independently in relation to Central and State

subjects. There may be certain information – especially in the Concurrent List –

which may have elements of information held both by Central and State public

authorities. Sometimes, even separating such information may not be possible.

In all such cases, the CIC should have the powers to decide the appeal even if

the matter is a State subject when such a matter is before it in an appeal or when

a State Commission refers the matter to it or not. Provision will need to be made

to apply the CIC’s decisions to states with all attendant penalty provisions; to

allow State Commissions to refer a matter to the CIC; and to empower the CIC

to withdraw a case, which may be before it or a State Commission for appeal.

11. Central Information Commission requires administrative and financial

autonomy. At present, it is totally dependent upon the government both for

administrative structure and for finances. So, Parliament should route a direct

grant to the Commission instead of routing fund allocation through the

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).

12. The Commission being a quasi-judicial body cannot function like any other

government department which has deputy secretaries and joint secretaries; hence

“Court masters and people with judicial background” are required by the

Commission.

13. Central Information Commission needs freedom to recruit staff as opposed to

the current practice of deputing personnel to the Commission from the

government. For this purpose, the Commission should have its own recruitment

rules.

14. Need of a unified command structure like Central Election Commission and

Central Vigilance Commission should be created for implementing the RTI Act.

All the Public Information Officers must come under administrative control of

Commission, so that these officials are insulated against extraneous influences.

These officials should not be transferred, changed or altered without the prior

permission of Information Commission.

262

15. The present system in which is that one has to deposit a certain amount of fees

to get the information should be avoided .We should follow the procedure

followed in European Countries at the time of supplying information to the

people. In those countries, information is available without any cost. Similarly,

the requirement under Section 7(1) and (3) that appeals to Appellate Authorities

or the Information Commission which is not accompanied by a fee are to be

rejected is in gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Act itself

does not permit the stipulation of any fee on the applicant for filing an appeal.

Therefore, the imposition of such a fee and rejection of an appeal on the basis of

non-payment is invalid. Therefore, such provisions should be deleted.

16. Although Sec.20 (2) of the Act says that disciplinary action in term of the

service rules shall be taken against the defaulter PIO if the later persistently fails

in his / her duty to provide the required information to the applicants. But,

disciplinary action stands nowhere defined. Thus, there is a need for amendment

in the Act to provide for specific kinds of disciplinary action and modes of their

execution.

17. Organisations which perform functions of a public nature that are ordinarily

performed by government or its agencies, and those which enjoy natural

monopoly may be brought within the purview of the Act. Norms should be

laid down that any institution or body that has received 50% of its annual

operating costs, or a sum equal to or greater than Rs.1 crore during any of the

preceding 3 years should be understood to have obtained ‘substantial funding’

from the government for the period and purpose of such funding. Any

information which, if it were held by the government, would be subject to

disclosure under the law, must remain subject to such disclosure even when it

is transferred to a non-government body or institution. This could be achieved

by way of removal of difficulties under section 30 of the Act.

18. To reduce frivolous and vexatious complaints, Section 7 may be amended to

insert sub section (10) as follows:

“The PIO may refuse a request for information if the request is manifestly

frivolous or vexatious.

Provided that such a refusal shall be communicated within 15 days of receipt

of application, with the prior approval of the appellate authority.

263

Provided further that all such refusals shall stand transferred to CIC/SIC, as

the case may be and the CIC/SIC shall dispose the case as if it is an appeal

under section 19(3) of the RTI Act”.

It may be provided that information can be denied if the work involved in

processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the

resources of the public body.

19. As sec.30 provides for issuing notifications for removal of difficulties within

two years of the commencement of the Act, a committee of Information

Commissioners of centre and stake holders may be formed to suggest suitable

modifications including amendments to the Act. If any amendments to the Act

are required, appropriate legislative measures could be taken up.

20. The official Secrets Act, 1923 should be repealed, and substituted by a Chapter

in the National Security Act, containing provision related to official secrets.

Safeguards against disclosure of information against the National interest may

be provided written undertaking by the incorporation of a clause in the National

Security Law dealing with official secrets. Similarly section 123 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 should be amended, Article 75(4) and 164(3) and the Third

Schedule should be suitably amended.

21. There is a need of certain changes in the Second Schedule of the Act as well,

which are as:-

a. The Armed Forces should be included in the Second Scheduled of the Act.

b. The Second Schedule of the Act may be reviewed periodically.

c. All organizations listed in the Second Schedule have to appoint PIOs.

d. Appeals against orders of PIOs should lie with CIC/SICs.

22. The judiciary needs to initiate measures for effective implementation of the RTI

for which it should frame rules as required under the Act. It could also consider

prioritising to disposal of cases where public authorities have withheld

information on stay of Commissioner’s orders.

264

23. A change in the attitude of the people is also required for the success of the RTI

Act in India. Instead of keeping any suspicious attitude towards the Act, people

should be convinced with its holistic approach and meritorious aspect. The civil

society must continue building pressure on public authorities to ensure the

implementation of the Act in letter and spirit. There is a need for formal

involvement of intermediary civil society organisations to train the PIOs and

APIOs in collaboration with other government nodal agencies.