Purpose Of Information Asked For

[neeraj Chauhan]

HI everbody,

I just read in HT that Mrs. Rupam Bajaj , Panjab Information Commissoner denied information or better say disposed off petition with a plea " Information Commission with in its jurisdiction can see what LETTER AND SPIIRIT OF ACT DEMANDS " . And further she goes on to say it is not the intent of act to supply information for research purposes and roving & fishing inquiries. Petitioner actually asked for data of nine years of Distt. Red Cross Society , Patiala to study trends and practices of Red Cross Society. He got similar data from DIET , Distt. institute of Elementary Training , Nabha (Panjab) . I GUESS It does not fall in ambit of SIC or CIC to deny something vehemently on the pretext of anything whatsoever. Act nowhere gives such discretion to any RTI implementor.

NICK

[Abhinav Bohare]

Hi Nick,

In fact I am unable to understand that why a researchers was asking for any information pertaining to Red cross , for research purpose, from IC of the concerned state. He could have done it directly without an RTI....

Data's of Red Cross Societies are with their heads and can be asked for, for research purpose, if that research is being conducted under legitimate authority .

Well even in case the data for research were asked via SIC or CIC , I would ask you to refer the Act or I would await some of our subject specialist to come with riposte....Because I think Punjab State IC is largely correct...

{Note I would also request not to quote the State IC name , instead you can mention her office, as it is against rtiindia.org ethics...General suggestion)

[Satish Gupta]

The purpose, for seeking information under RTI, is IRRELEVANT!! This has been established beyond any doubt, by CIC decisions, and by courts in USA (under FOIA). Therefore whether a person was seeking information for research or just for fun, the Red Cross must provide it.

The logic of the above decisions goes like this. If PA takes into consideration the reason why a person is asking for information, then PA can deny information based upon his decision as to why a person is asking for information. PA would deny information, and then the courts would have to decide on each case if requester's reason is legitimate or not.

For example, let us say I ask for Red Cross information, claiming that I am a reporter for a newspaper, and have reason to believe that there was irregularity within Red Cross. The PIO at Red Cross will have to check my credentials with the newspaper I claim to work for. Then PIO might say that he wants to know the reason why I believe there was irregularity within Red Cross. Only if PIO is satisfied, he would release the information. Once he releases the information to me, I can publish it on web, or in a newspaper. Everyone can see the information. So what was the purpose of PIO checking all my credentials etc., before releasing the information.

If some information is public, it is free for all to see, not just those select few who can show that they have some special public interest in mind.

[kushal]

I am not sure about the exact decision, would anybody care to put that for us?
If the information is not exempt under Section 8 (1) (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;

http://act.rtiindia.info/index.html?section_08.html
It should invariably be in public domain.

[neeraj Chauhan]

Hi there,
Well Abhinav i must tell you Petitioner first asked info from PIO of Red Cross Society , AA of Red Cross Society. Then matter came up for SIC hearing there Panjab IC says " Why he (Petitioner ) needed the information, he stated he required this data in Public Interest and to study broad impact and trends/Changes in working over the years. During the hearing IC directed petitioner to personally inspect all records " . Petitoner didnot wish to visit Distt. RCS and choose docs he wanted .
Then IC order reads " It appears the complainant in the present case has no definite purpose but a generalised goal and would like to study these records at leisure later. As such he has himself not taken blanket opportunity afforded to him ie.. to inspect the records and files. Therefore complaint is disposed off "
Here i infer from IC views that RTI panel is against casual inquires and Act also not meant to faciilitate research or Ph.D. Is it in accordance with any of RTI Section/Subsection or just personal whims only.

NICK

[colnrkurup]

To me it appears to be a clear case of misuse of the Act. Here the Appellant is not very keen on getting the information but want the entire spade work of his research done by the CPIO. In such cases the the CPIO could have refused the information under Section 7(9) viz., "it would disproportionately divert the resources ofthe public authority.

[karira]

Please read the attached word doc to see the two full decisions.
(Please ignore the line/word gaps due to formatting issues)

Something seems fishy in this whole episode.
Read very carefully to understand the motives of the parties involved.

[Debashis Basu]

Dear Karira

Please post the word (.doc) file in Notepad. Copy & paste again in to our website reply space and use formatting tools. This way this important decision can be easily read.

[Debashis Basu]

Dear Kushal

Do you agree that IC has acted beyond his scope by making self assumption in his order that " It appears the complainant in the present case has no definite purpose but a generalised goal and would like to study these records at leisure later. As such he has himself not taken blanket opportunity afforded to him ie.. to inspect the records and files. Therefore complaint is disposed off " What is this "disposed off means ? rejected ?

Colnkurup Sir. I need your further valuable views on application of section 7(9). If this section is not very conservatively applied - a query on Ration card or Land matter because of our huge population and fragmented land records.It will be always 'disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority"in Food Dept or Land Dept of the Govt.

[karira]

Originally Posted by Debashis Basu

Dear Karira

Please post the word (.doc) file in Notepad. Copy & paste again in to our website reply space and use formatting tools. This way this important decision can be easily read.

I tried doing that twice but I get some funny looking formatting symbols like double arrows, etc...Hence foiund this to be easier.

[Debashis Basu]

I am sorry. But this are the steps what I had read in this website to avoid ghost characters of MS Word ! I am following it to make my postings. So far no problem in posting from .doc to our website.

[colnrkurup]

You are absolutely correct. Section 7(9) is a double-edged weapon. It can also be misused by PIO to evade giving information. Section 2(j)(i) viz., provision to allow inspection can counter the negative aspect. The present case is a typical example. After all an honest PIO who is keen to follow the RTI Act need some protection from the so called misusers. If the information seeker is clean, what stop him from inspecting the document when he is allowed. He would have done so and would have specifically asked for copies of specific pages. He does not want to do it. He would like the PIO to gather the information and provide him as if the PIO is his assistant in his research work . Don't you think it is unfair ?. After all PIO does not mean enemy of the Act. He is one of us. If he is clean, the RTI Act should help him also. I personally feel that Architect of the Act would have visualised such a cituation and deliberately put Section 7(9) to save honest PIOs.

[Debashis Basu]

Dear Colnkurup

Your logic is to the point and bang on target. I accept the same. Thanks again.