Subhash Chandra Agrawal
RTI Act implemented on 12th October 2005 in initial years of its implementation did wonders not only by exposing scams and scandals, but also resulted in systematic reforms. However, RTI rules (and not the RTI Act) need important modifications mainly to prevent misuse of the Act and minimizing challenge to CIC verdicts in courts.
Precious time of Information Commissions and courts should be saved through notification issued by central government to declare all public-private-partnerships, sports-bodies, cooperative-societies and other such bodies, public-authorities under RTI Act. Land and Building Departments of central and state governments should study all cases of allotment of land or government-accommodations at subsidized rates or lease, and declare all these as public-authorities under RTI Act. For future, land or government-accommodations should be provided at subsidized rates on pre-condition of beneficiaries coming under purview of RTI Act.
Since many people think that RTI applications if filed at high offices like those of President, Prime Minister, Governor, Lt Governor and Chief Minister get more attention, provision in RTI rules may be there that these offices may not act like “Post Offices” by transferring RTI applications under section 6(3) of RTI Act to concerned departments. These offices should entertain RTI applications pertaining to their respective offices only, and returning rest others to RTI applicants advising applicants to file RTI applications directly to concerned departments.
Considering vast participation of public-money in private sector banks, all private sector banks must be under purview of RTI Act. Already all employees up-to highest post of CMD are public servants according to Banking Regulation Act. Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had to impose restrictions on withdrawal of money for some time on a prominent private sector bank. Former CMD of another prominent private sector Bank is under arrest for serious charges of misappropriation of public-money in the Bank. Inspection Reports of private banks revealed under RTI Act by RBI reveal gross misuse of public money by top management. Another private sector bank is in notoriety for large number of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). Heavy fluctuation in share-prices of certain private sector banks tend to doubt regarding safety of public money in private sector banks. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (RBI subsidiary) has to pay maximum rupees five lakhs from state-funds to each depositor of the bank including those in private sector which collapses due to massive irregularities, which is public-funding to declare private sector banks as “public-authorities” under section 2(h) of RTI Act. It should be compulsory for all banks (private and public) to put their respective Inspection Reports prepared by RBI on their respective websites in true spirit of Supreme Court verdict. RBI website on its website should place Inspection Reports of all banks in private and public sector.
Section 27 and 28 of RTI Act give power to Competent Authorities and state-governments to draft their own rules which include fixing of RTI fees. Several Competent Authorities and states misused their power by having RTI fees as high as rupees 500. Several states fixed RTI fees for filing First Appeals also. However Supreme Court in its verdict dated 20.03.2018 imposed a capping of rupees fifty to be maximum RTI fees.
India should be governed with the principle “One Nation-One Rule” in respect of RTI-fees by clubbing copying-charges of first twenty copied pages with basic RTI-fees of rupees ten (for central public-authorities) thus making Rupees Fifty as uniform RTI-fees throughout the country inclusive of charges of first twenty copied pages. Making basic RTI-fees at rupees fifty will largely prevent misuse of RTI Act. There must not be any fees for filing First or Second Appeals. To prevent big contractors and others misusing the provision by filing RTI applications under names of their workers of BPL category to get copying-charges in thousands of rupees waived off, persons under BPL category may be required to pay copying-charges for copied pages exceeding twenty.
Handling cost of a postal-order of value rupees ten costs postal-department about rupees fifty with cost of handling of postal-orders by a public-authority and bank-clearing even extra. Most public-authorities require postal-orders in different names even though DoPT in its various circulars has required postal-orders towards RTI payments to be in name of Accounts-Officer only. To overcome situation, frequent CIC-verdicts and administrative-requests of CIC should be accepted by postal-department to issue special RTI-stamps (like earlier stamps for payment of licence-fees of radios and TV sets) in denominations of rupees 2, 10 and 50 which will save crores of rupees annually to public-exchequers in using postal-orders as mode of payment of RTI fees. These RTI stamps should be conveniently available at all post-offices and counters of public-authorities and other convenient sale-points. This will tackle situation where public-authorities like National Green Tribunal (NGT) refuse acceptance of RTI fees in cash with nearest post office at Baroda House (New Delhi) not selling postal orders thus putting RTI applicants in big difficulty.
Post-free RTI-applications addressed to central public-authorities should be accepted at all about 160000 post-offices rather than just about 4500 post offices presently. It is not difficult because every post-office however small it may be, daily sends post-bag to Head Post Office with registered post, cash and unsold revenue-articles. This post-bag can carry post-free RTI-applications received at the post-office.
DoPT should issue a circular in tune with para 23 of verdict dated 02.11.2012 by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter “Fruit and Vegetable Union versus Unknown” (CWP 4787 of 2011) which requires ID proof compulsory to be attached with every RTI application, First Appeal and petitions filed with Information Commissions. Already the aspect has been adopted at Odisha apart from Punjab and Haryana. Those who do not want to disclose their identity, can file RTI applications through post-box hired at some post-office. Police-enquiry conducted at behest of some Indian missions abroad established that a petitioner approached Central Information Commission with name and address both of which did not exist. Online portals for filing RTI applications should be modified so that RTI-responses and orders of First Appellate Authorities may also be auto-emailed rather than RTI-applicants required to search portal for viewing of RTI-responses. SMS and email alerts about emailing of RTI-responses should also be there.
Websites designed by National Informatics Centre (NIC) for central public-authorities should be mandatorily for all states. This has become necessary for state like Odisha which has made online filing of RTI-applications a mockery when it is compulsory to download online-filled RTI-application, and then send it by post to concerned department. Furthermore, option-list for payment does not include even all the banks.
Delhi High Court in its order dated 08.08.2018 in WPC 8278 of 2018 in the matter “Anil Dutt Sharma versus Government of NCT Delhi and others” mentioned – This Court is of the prima facie view that the Right-To-Information Act, 2005 would now override the Delhi Right To Information Act, 2001 as it would occupy the entire legislative field. DRTI Act has lost all with implementation of RTI Act 2005. Very few applications are filed under DRTI Act. All such acts legislated by individual states, before RTI Act 2005 came into existence must be repealed.
Writer is RTI consultant holding Guinness World record for most letters published in newspapers
