Proposed amendments to RTI Rules of Central Govt

[MOHANDAS]

Sub: Proposed amendments in the RTI Act 2005.


1. The viability of seeking a large number of information by an RTI Applicant under the Act may be checked in its right perspective. Please examine a situation an RTI applicant is requiring one hundred information on different subject matters by paying a sum of Rs.10/- as processing fee. You will appreciate even in the Rly. Reservation slip – application, the number of tickets has been limited to six unless seeking for group booking. A suitable amendment in this regard may be considered.


2. The limitation of 250 words as proposed is not viable. If one strictly follow such stringent norms, the very purpose of enacting the RTI Act 2005 will be defeated. However, it may kindly be considered to restrict the number of information on one subject matter to 6 – 10 as per the case.


3. From the experience of the last 5 years after implementation of the RTI Act 2005, which came into effect from Oct 2005, it is being noticed that CPIOs/APIOs or Respondents are indulging in furnishing incorrect, incomplete or misleading information deliberately in order to save the P.A. As the situation prevails, the provisions of penalty as defined in Sec. 20 under the RTI 2005 is insufficient. Rather there is a tendency to furnish the penalty amount of Rs.25K in each case and escape from the situation, as the earning capacity of the PIO/APIO have been tremendously increased. An amendment in its right perspective to inflict an effective major penalty may be evolved in such cases.

4. A suitable time limit may be prescribed to complete the process of 2nd Appeal taking the subject matter in its right perspective.

The other provisions of the RTI Act 2005 which are in vogue may kindly be allowed to be continued. In other words, by diluting the existing provisions, where the amendment are not essential, kindly do not dilute the different provisions of the Act and render the RTI Act 2005 a toothless tiger.

[rajyadav017]

Sponsorer

Dear members
We are champions in the leage of nations in the corruption matters. Everybody knows Executive, Judiciary, And Lagislatures are demanding to curb the rti act. remember how the Cji demanded to exempet the judiciary from the PM. govt in any way going to curtail the powers of this act. I demand the following amendments in this act.

i) Fees should be abolished , some other means to finance the operation of this act should be found out Eg cess for rti act from the tax payers.

ii) Charges of xerox copy rs 2.

iii) It should be mandatory on the part of pio to provide the info as the citizen required. eg E mail. ,by post.

iv) if the pio is fined then 50% money should be remitted to the applicant for harrasment metedout to the applicant.

v) There should be time limit for the Commission to despose the rti appl withih 30 days.

vi) Appallet Authority time shoul;d be reduced to 20 days as they are simply concurrying with their PIOs.

Thank u

[RAVEENA_O]

On RTI Draft Rules, my suggestiosn are as under:

Rule-4

The provision under Rule-4 of 250 words is unjustified.
It should be modifid to 'and shall be limited to one A4 size page hand written or type written or electronically processed with font size not less than 12'

Rule-5(g)

Provision under Rule5(g) is unjustified.
Every public authority has a constitutional obligation to supply the information, very specificaly when an applicant is also required to pay the cost of information as descirbed in this section. Supplying inforamtion to the citizens is a legal obligation caste upon each public authority under the RTI
Act. The infrastructural cost is a part of working expenses of the Public Authority and hence cannot be recovered from the RTI Applicants. When a law is made, the expenditure for its implementation must be borne by the appropriate Government.

Rule-11(2)

The commission has power to entertain Complaints under Section-18 of the Act directly from Citizens. The express provision of Sec-18 of RTI Act is to give opportunity to air grievances in circumstances when the PA totally violate the provisions of the Act. This right needs to be protected. Therefore the wording of Sub-Rule-2 of Rule-11 shall be "Subject to the provisions of Section-18 of the Act, the commission shall not admit an appeal ......."

Rule-12(i)

'concerned or interested person' mentioned in this clause would complicate the appeal case. When an aggrieved appellant reach the Commission, suddenly no interested person can interfere and stall the proceedings. There can be only four parties to an appeal before the Commission i.e. Appellant, CPIO, FAA & third party (Under Sec-11 of the Act). Therefore the wording of this clause shall be - "receive oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from the parties to the Appeal." The legislative intent is very clear in clause (vi) of Rule-12 of this Draft Rules itself.

Rule-13

Rule-13 is required to be dropped. A large number of Appeals are preferred by the Employees of the Public Authorities. Provision of such a rule would enable the PA to coercively pressurize and threaten the honest employees to withdraw the appeal. Moreover, this would create a big loophole and dilute the Act
whereby the PAs / CPIOs or FAAs can avoid enforcement of the provisions of the Act, simply because they need not fear action by Commission since the employee-appellants can be pressuried
to withdraw the Appeals. Therefore Rule-13 should not be allowed to stand.

Rule-14(2) &
Rule-15

The RTI Act is a common man's law. The word 'duly authorised representative' reflected in Rule-14(2) and Rule-15 have wider implications. The public authority can afford to keep a standing counsel at the Commission to resist/contest the entire Appeals, whereas the poor 'citizen' cannot afford to have a counsel at Delhi or at any other place for a one or two page document, unless he has considerable
financial interest. This would defeat the very purpose of filing a second appeal before the Commission. The appellant may not get or cannot afford equal opportunity of engaging a counsel. Therefore instead of using 'duly authorized representative' it should be 'duly authorised representative who is not a lawyer' in Rule-14(2) and 'duly authorised officer of the Public Authority' in Rule-15 would be appropriate. Otherwise, RTI would be like any other law and the common man cannot get justice.

Rule-17(iii)

In Sub-Rule-(iii) of Rule-17, the words 'or by Speed Post' to be added. Regd Post AD is now-a-days a snail mail. The Commission's seven days notice may reach the parties only after the due date or atmost a day before the hearing.

Rule-19
r/w Rule-20(1)Rule-20(2) &Rule-21

The woridng that the 'Head of the Public Authority shall ensure' mentioned in this Rule necessitate that the Commission should know as to who is the Head of Public Authority. Therefore Item no.2 of the FORMAT OF APPEAL (Appendix) shall be
'Name of Public Authority & Head of the Public authority'. This is required for the commission to give specific directives necessary under Rule-20(1), Rule-20(2) and Rule-21 of these Rules. The remaining clauses should be renumbered accordingly.

Appendix

Name of Public Authority and Head of Office
with designation to be added.

Name & address of Third Party(s), be included in this
Appendix.

A PA may deny information in favour of a third
party submission. Such a party is entitled for hearing before the Commission. Otherise, at a later stage, the third party may challenge the decision of the Commission under the principles of 'audi alteram partem' OR 'Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa'

Apart from this, there is mass deliberation that there should not be any format (meaning Appendix). From the practical view point, may appellants do not mention as to who is the Public Authority or what information is denied etc, but only air some sort of grievances. The Appendix as well as the Documents esp the RTI Application, CPIO's decision, First Appeal, FAA's order and third party submission or decision (if any) would enable the Commission to deal with the case properly. Similar is the case with FAA also. The Appendix and the documents mentioned in Draft Rules would not cause any prejudice to the Appellant.

I hope my suggestions would be useful to present views before the Committee.

Thanks!

[abhi987]

Dear All,

1. DoPT IS FOR RECRUITMENT & TRAINING OF PERSONNEL; A DEPARTMENT OF MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE SHOULD BE DRAFTING THE RULES:

Department of Personnel & Training as the name suggests is the Human Resource department of the Central Government of India, and as such is entailed with the responsibility of recruitment and training of personnel required by the Central Government of India.

Drafting of Rules is a legal subject.

I fail to understand how Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) responsible for recruiting and training of personnel is carrying out a legal process on behalf of the Appropriate Government.

A department under the Ministry of Law & Justice would have been an appropriate department for drafting Rules and inviting suggestions from the civil society.

Apparently it appears to be an unprofessional approach.

This has led to drafting of illegal Rules.

2. RULES CAN ONLY PRESCRIBE FEES & PROCEDURES:

Rules can be made Only and Only for prescribing fees & procedures to carry out the provisions of an Act and can not supersede, add, delete, substitute or DEFINE legislative provisions.

Section 27 (2) (a to e) and section 28 (2) (i to iii) lays down generic but nevertheless a very clear intent of the legislature that rules are for prescribing fees and procedures for carrying out the provisions of the Act. (Please go through the text of sec. 27 & 28).

By logical inference, section 27(2) (f) and section 28(2)(iv) are in the same breath.

3. DRAFT RULES ARE ILLEGAL:

Rules (prescribing fees & procedure) cannot direct an Information Commission on when and under what circumstance to reject an appeal OR whether a Commission can review its decision or not.

But, when an Information Commission (in accordance with the provision of the Act) decides to accept, reject or review an appeal, the RULES CAN PRESCRIBE a UNIFORM PROCEDURE to be followed for accepting, rejecting or reviewing an appeal, as well as fees if any for the same.

RULE 4: How can Rule 4 define legislative provisions like “One Subject Matter”; “Limit of Words” etc? If these provisions were there in the Act, then Rules prescribing a uniform procedure could have been made for accomplishing these provisions.

RULE 11: Rejecting an Appeal which is equal to Deciding an Appeal has to be done in accordance with the legislative provisions (section 19) and cannot be done in accordance with the proposed Rule 11.

(As per Rule 11, a hearing will be given to an appellant, reasons for rejection recorded thereof, which means Commissioner as well as Appellant will be present in the hearing and the only party missing will be a PIO, thus Rejecting an appeal in the absence of a PIO would contravene sec. 19(5) of the Act)

RULE 12: The title of Rule 12 (Procedure for deciding appeals) seems to be legally valid but the content of the same seem to be legislative in nature and hence illegal.

RULE 13 -

Rule 13 - Provided that such request shall not be entertained by the Commission after the matter has been finally heard or a decision or order has been pronounced by the Commission.

[CENTER]v/s.[/CENTER]

Section 19 (9) -The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority

Rule 13 contravenes section 19(9) of the Act.

4. Legislature represents the entire nation and as such competent to enact legislative provisions. How can DoPT enact legislative provisions in the guise of prescribing fees & procedure to carry out the legislative provisions?

The suggested DRAFT RULES are LEGISLATIVE IN NATURE, thus IN EFFECT AMENDING the RTI Act and therefore ILLEGAL.

The Act can be amended only by introducing a Bill in the Parliament and thereafter following the relevant provisions of Article 107 to 111 of the Constitution of India

SUMMARY:

• Rules can only prescribe fees & procedure and cannot lay down legislative provisions.

• Any rule made under section 27 & 28 of the RTI Act, which prescribes anything other than Fee or Procedure is illegal.

[RAVEENA_O]

1. It is the duty of the Nodal ministry to frame Rules. Every Rules framed under the legislations are first ratified by the Ministry of Law and Justice.

2. Rule 27(1) provides that the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. Therefore the Central Government has power to frame the Rules.

Sub-Rule(2) of Rule-27 is only supplement to Sub-Rule(1). Provisions in Sub-Rule(2) do not override the provisions of Sub-Rule(1). Therefore the Appropriate Government has power to frame Rules under the Act.

Rule 28(1) and (2) are analogous provisions but the power is vested with competent authority. Definition of ‘competent authority’ is clearly defined under Section-2(e) of the Act, which include [S.2(e)(iv)] ie. President or the Governor. The provisions under Rule 28(1) read with Section-2(e)(iv) do not take away the power of Central Government (President of India) to frame Rules under the Act. Therefore the President or Central Government can frame Rules under the Act.

Provisions of Sub-section(2) of Section-27 and 28 are ‘without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power' (meaning Section-27(1) and Section-28(1). Wording of Section-27(1) and Section-28(1) bestow unrestricted power to Central Government and Competent Authority.


Reading of Section-19(10) with Section-27(2)(e) would make it amply clear that the competent authority can prescribe procedures to be adopted by the CIC.

3. The object of proviso under Rule-13 (proposed) is very clear that an appellant cannot revert to the provision of withdrawal of appeal after the appeal is finally heard and order passed by the Commission. That means that an Appellant can withdraw the appeal only before final hearing or decision of the Commission. ( I have already suggested to totally drop Rule-13).

As already suggested by Karira, let all of us think and suggest ways to make the proposed rules proper and useful