Right to Information (RTI) activists in the country are angry over recent developments in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh that contradict the spirit of a law enacted to facilitate availability of information

Social activist Gupteshwar Singh never imagined the price he would be asked to pay for filing a simple RTI query on the distribution of foodgrain and kerosene under the Public Distribution System (PDS) in his district; the supply officer sought a whopping Rs 78,21,252 for providing him the information! 

Singh, who lives in Agiyaw, in Bihar’s Bhojpur district, filed the application on June 5, 2008, seeking date-wise details on the distribution of foodgrain and kerosene under the PDS in Udvantnagar, Agiyaw, Tarai, Garhani, Sandesh and Sahar (all in the same district) between 2000 and 2008. He also sought photocopies of dealers’ payment receipts. 

On July 18, Bhojpur supply officer Jawahar Prasad wrote to Singh telling him that “…all the desired information was ready with details…” but that he would first have to deposit Rs 78,21,252 -- the estimated cost of photocopying the documents. “If you do not turn up… by the said time (July 25), it would be understood that you do not need the information at all,” Prasad added.  

Singh said he had not asked for photocopies of all the PDS documents of the last eight years, and that Prasad was being “vindictive”.  

Prasad was unavailable for comment, but officials at his department maintained that, under the RTI Act, applicants must pay Rs 2 for each document photocopied. 

Fortunately, Prasad’s reply arrived more than 30 days from the date of filing the application, which made Singh eligible for free information under the RTI rules. So he appealed on July 24 and when he didn’t get a reply he filed a second appeal on August 25. He is now awaiting a date of hearing. 

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh the State Information Commission has formulated rules and regulations for implementation of the RTI Act without seeking public opinion. The matter came to the attention of activists after it was posted on the commission’s website.  

RTI activists from across the country have come together to oppose the rules and regulations and have demanded several amendments. “The regulations of the state commission are a copy of the Central Information Commission (CIC) rules and regulations which reject 60% of cases on technical grounds,” says RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal.  

Urvashi Sharma of RTI Mahila Manch says the rules are meant to make the process of seeking information so complex that it acts as a deterrent and forces the applicant to seek legal help. “The law was passed after a people’s movement. It was drafted by civil society. Its rules should also be made through public discussion,” she adds.  

The Manch has written an open letter to officiating State Chief Information Commissioner Gyanendra Sharma. Copies of the letter have been sent to the President of India, the state governor and the state’s chief minister.  

Sharma clarified that the rules and regulations were basically for the smooth functioning of the commission. “We are going through all suggestions and will incorporate whatever is feasible before implementing them,” he added. 

Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah stated that although the states had the authority to formulate regulations for implementation of the Act in its true spirit, it was better to seek public opinion whilst drafting the regulations.  

Some points and counterpoints in the SIC regulations:  

• Rule 6 mentions a flexible two-to-four-week summer break and a two-week winter break. Activists say this lacks clarity. Besides, it is unjustified when over 10,000 cases are pending with the SIC.
• Rule 8(1) (a) makes it mandatory for the appellant/complainant to furnish his personal details, apart from the name and address. Activists say what the personal details should be is not specified.
• Rule 11(5) (b) says that the registrar can cancel cases that are not maintainable due to “some” reasons. Activists say the word “some” is ambiguous.
• Rule 12 dealing with the filing of a ‘counter’ by the public information officer offers a bunch of relaxations to the PIO as it says: “After getting the complaint/appeal, the PIO shall submit his counter (if there is any) along with related documents. Activists ask why the words “if there is any” when, according to Rule 10, the complainant/appellant has to send a copy of the complaint/appeal to the PIO and compulsorily furnish attested copies to the SIC while filing the complaint/appeal.
• Rule 12 says that during hearings in a commission, “generally” the PIO shall present his view. Activists say this should be mandatory.

Source: The Indian Express, September 25, 2008