Department of Personnel and Training , Director IR has invited views/suggestions from the citizens on the draft guidelines regarding elements that a RTI reply should essentially contain by 16.04.2015. through email at email@example.com. You can visit our forum here and post your views/suggestion for improvement.
The draft format has been vetted by Ministry of Law and Justice and contains following elements:
- The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO
- In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
- In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
- In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipts of reply of CPIO.
- The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned.
- In addition, wherever the applicant has requested for ‘certified copies’ of the documents or records, the CPIO should endorse on the document “True copy of the document/record”. sign the document with date, above a seal containing name of the officer, CPIO (in place of designation) and name of public authority.
Read more ›
RTI reply through Registered Post AD or Speed Post is what the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission has been insisting. The reply through ordinary mail should not be resorted too. Neither there should be compulsion to RTI Applicant to collect the information from the Public Offices.
In the recent order by Karnataka Information Commission, in the case “Sri M. S. Kumaraswamy vs. PIO & Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Whitefield Sub-division, Bangalore”, noted that “the Respondent has now provided the information which has been handed over to the unauthorized person without obtaining the acknowledgement. Commission noted that in several instances the officers and officials of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike have handed over the information to the unauthorized persons other than the applicants or to the authorized persons. Further, the Commission has already stated that there is no need to applicants to go over to the Government offices and the Public Information Officer / public authority should send the information either through the speed post or RPAD. This should be scrupulously followed.” Read more ›
The disclosure of APAR (Annual Performance Appraisal Report) of Government official has been the hot topic after the implementation of the RTI (Right to Information) Act was passed in 2005. Various RTI have been filed to obtain the APAR from the Government organisations. It has been established that the APAR is to be revealed to the individual for whom it has been written. You may go through this discussions here!
The APAR of Government Officer
The ACR (now APAR) is to be disclosed to the officer reported upon only. Except Military Officers, all other officers are entitled to get copy of their own ACR/APAR.
ACR/APAR cannot be disclosed to third party.
PDF copy of Judgment is available in Read more ›
Suo Moto Disclosure of information under Right to Information in India
Suo Motu Disclosure- Can DoPT latest guidelines improve RTI?
Suo Motu Disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005: DoPT has issued a latest guidelines for Suo Motu Disclosure for Government Departments named as Implementation of suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005. It is expected that as these are very exhaustive guidelines and if followed by the Public Authority, will reduce the number of RTI applications it needs to reply. Read the order here!
But these guidelines were issued earlier too. Do guidelines have any enforceability?
As far as the RTI Act is concerned, Public Authority cannot be held responsible for Sec 4 implementation or non compliance of Sec 4 implementation. Under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Right to Information act 2005, all public authorities are suppose to maintain all their records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner that facilitates the Right to Information. Also Under Section 4(2) of the Right to Information act 2005, all public authorities have to suo motu disclose information pertaining to their functioning as per the 17 points listed under Section 4(1) (b)
Also we ponder- who is to enforce implementation of Sec 4 ?