Prescribed form not must for RTI applications

[karira]

As reported by TNS in tribuneindia.com on 26 May 2006:
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Punjab

Prescribed form not must for RTI applications

Chandigarh, May 25
The State Information Commission (SIC), Punjab, has held that public authorities cannot reject RTI applications on the ground that the information request was not in the form prescribed by the State
Government.

The Punjab Government had prescribed ‘Form A’ under the Punjab RTI Rules, 2007, in which RTI applicants were supposed to answer nine queries first before the RTI application could be entertained.

The form was challenged by a local lawyer Capt Navdeep Singh before the full bench of the Commission on the ground that it contravened the provisions of the RTI Act which did not prescribe any such form.

The ambiguity was compounded by the fact that one Bench of the Commission comprising P K Verma had held the application form to be mandatory while another bench of Rupan Deol Bajaj had held that there was no requirement of seeking information in the said format since the Act did not prescribe it.

While holding that a complaint filed under Section 18 of RTI Act was not maintainable, the full Bench, however, made it clear that the rules were only directory in nature and not mandatory and if a sufficiently clear application was made to any public authority then the same could not be rejected for the reason of not being in ‘Form A’.

The Bench also stated that the rules were meant to facilitate information and had to be construed liberally. The commission also held that in case any PIO or appellate authority rejected an application on grounds of it not being in conformity of the state rules, the Commission could direct the supply of the information to the applicant.

[sidmis]

A very good decision.

I hope other state commissions like Karnataka and Orissa emulate this order.

Sidharth

[The Great]

Yes Kariraji I will try it in my next application. Thank you for the information.

[slchowdhary]

Today, I received a rejection order [ Form 'D' Rule 5(2) ] from SPIO of Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur. It rejects my application on following grounds:
1. Not being in prescribed form
2. Self attested photograph not affixed
3. nonjudicial stamp of Rs 100/- not attached.
It does give me option of appealing but has not given the name,designation,address of AA.
Any advise how to proceed further? And any body able to locate rules of raj high court in regard to RTI ?

[karira]

Originally Posted by slchowdhary

Today, I received a rejection order [ Form 'D' Rule 5(2) ] from SPIO of Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur. It rejects my application on following grounds:
1. Not being in prescribed form
2. Self attested photograph not affixed
3. nonjudicial stamp of Rs 100/- not attached.
It does give me option of appealing but has not given the name,designation,address of AA.
Any advise how to proceed further? And any body able to locate rules of raj high court in regard to RTI ?

Cannot find the rules on the web but found the following decision of the RIC:

http://ric.rajasthan.gov.in/2007/0822007.pdf

Probably the Rajasthan HC made the rules after this.

[slchowdhary]

Thanks Mr Karira.
I am still worried about 'prescribed form', 'photograph' and Rs 100/- as fee. This is an attempt to defeat the purpose of the RTIA. Any comment on this ? Should we not raise this issue in the wkshp at jaipur on 7th june?

[karira]

slchowdhary,

Persuant to the RTI Act, the Centre, each State, Each House of Parliament, State Legislatures, Supreme Court & High Courts have all framed rules for the "operative part" of the RTI Act (fees, application procedure, appeal procedures, etc.)

Just search for "supreme court" or "high court" in the forum and you will see many news reports about rules framed by the courts being termed as applicant "unfriendly".

Good point to raise at the conference.

[sandeepbaheti]

The prescribed format is optional even in M.P.
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org..._act_feb06.pdf

"the format of application annexed to The Right to Information (Fees and Appeals) Rules, 2005 is only a model provided for the sake of convenience"