Our Administators of yester-years are at loss to identify the distinctive features of the
RTI Act from other enactments. As per existing jurisprudence, based on enactments of British-Raj and their most obedient servants, the burden to establish one's plea with proven evidence and reason is purely on the Plaintiff/Appellant. But our wise-men are not aware that in
RTI Act, this liability is shifted from the Appellant to Respondent. Apart from various other provisions, Section 19(5) of the
RTI Act is categorical. Our Administers who are trained in the old system and has been practicing it for more than 35 years can neither change their mind-set nor think otherwise. This exactly is the Curse of our
RTI Act. Our elected/nominated leaders partly out of compulsion/gratitude/black-mail and partly due to their blinkers are forced to choose the
CIC/SICs and Information Commissioners from these bureaucrates whose actions/inactions were the root-cause of enactment of the
RTI Act. These Wise-men does not find anything wrong in dismissing or brushing aside a second appeal/complaint under
RTI Act ordering that
" He was the appellant, and it was for him to state his case, prosecute the same before the Commission " and " The appellant was summoned to appear before the Commission to substantiate his case " (Extracts from an SIC's orders of 12-11-2007). Until these wise-men are trained to grasp the critical aspects of RTI Act, ke-zara-zara.