Right to vote and Right to Information of the “little” citizen is of profound significance in a democracy

right-to-voteCentral Information Commission came down heavily over Election Office for not providing details of Voter ID card stating that “It is clear that their inaction and non response to RTI application is violation of both of his rights- right to information and right to vote.”

Citing Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. vs Ramesh Chander Bawa on 14th May, 2010, W.P. (C) 6129/2007, where the Honble Delhi High Court held:

Just as the right to vote of the “little” citizen is of profound significance in a democracy, so is the right to information. It is another small but potent key in the hands of India’s “little” people that can “unlock” and lay bare the internal workings of public authorities whose decisions affect their daily lives in myriad unknown ways…

The Election Office, which spends huge money for campaign for enrolment of voters, but does not prefer to inform the applicant for the voter card under RTI also.

Commission thinks that the Election Office machinery should have been responsive to voter card requirements and RTI applications.

Right to vote and Right to Information

CIC further stated that

The voter has right to information about action on his application for voter card and also RTI under RTI Act. Article 325 of Indian Constitution categorically mandates that there shall be no discrimination in inclusion into the electoral rolls. By negligence or inaction, the Election Office has not included the applicant’s voter card in the electoral list and thus his constitutional right is breached.

There is no statutory provision to give compensation to the applicant who could not get his votercard, which means his Constitutional right to vote, though he was eligible and submitted required documents has no remedy, but RTI Act provides for compensation if there is any loss or detriment caused to the voter.

Thus the Commission directed the Election Office to show cause why suitable compensation should not be ordered to be paid by them to the applicant (for vote and information about not giving voter card). The decision can be read here- CIC_SA_A_2015_002048_M_180194

Posted in For Common Man, RTI Act 2005
Tags: , , ,
  • jagdish rawat

    Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu in his recent decision No. CIC/RM/A/2014/003759-SA dated 27/10/2016 has not ensured the compliance of Section 4 (1), (2). 6 (3) and Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act from the Public Authority of IIT Kanpur. On the contrary, he has not complied Section 19 (6) & (10) of the RTI Act at the time of hearing of appeal. He has not even perused or inspected the documents. provided with the appeal and also not received the evidence of affidavit from the CPIO as mandatory under RTI Rule 11 (ii) & (vi). He has also not perused the decision of FAA on the First Appeal which was neither in conformation of my First RTI request and the partial reply of the CPIO. On the contrary, he illicitly allowed the CPIO to present its case through Video conferencing against RTI Rule 13. In fact, Prof. Acharyulu has not taken his decision in good faith as his functioning is covered under Section 166 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Apart from it, he has conferred illegitimate authority to the CPIO for rejecting my fresh RTI requests by stating that it is a repeat RTI Application and thereby he violated Article 19 (a) of the Constitution of India. The Commission is not even providing me a copy of Video recording of the hearing of Second Appeal to enable to prove the flouting of the RTI Act by Prof. Acharyulu.

  • Shashavali

    The officers should cleanly check and issue Election Cards. The officers should issue Election Cards without delay to those persons who apply for new cards & request for change of adress. So that It will be helpful for them to use for Govt offices and to cast vote as a citizen of INDIA Our Country.

Meet RTI Activist