Right to Information (RTI) has brought transparency and systemic reforms but there is need to prevent its misuse and plug in loopholes
RTI Act implemented on 12th October 2005 in the initial years of its implementation did wonders not only by exposing scams and scandals but also resulted in systemic reforms. However, RTI rules (and not the RTI Act) need important modifications mainly to prevent misuse of the Act and minimise challenge to CIC verdicts in courts.
Precious time of Information Commissions and courts should be saved through a notification issued by the central government to declare all public-private partnerships, sports-bodies, cooperative societies and other such bodies, and public authorities under the RTI Act. Land and Building Departments of central and state governments should study all cases of allotment of land or government accommodations at subsidised rates or leases, and declare all these as public authorities under the RTI Act. For the future, land or government accommodations should be provided at subsidised rates on pre-condition of beneficiaries coming under the purview of the RTI Act.
Considering the vast participation of public money in private sector banks, all private sector banks must be under the purview of the RTI Act. Already all employees up to the highest post of CMD are public servants according to the Banking Regulation Act. RBI had to impose restrictions on the withdrawal of money for some time on a prominent private sector bank. The 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 the RTI Act by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) reveal gross misuse of public money by top management.
Another private sector bank is renowned for a large number of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). Heavy fluctuation in share prices of certain private sector banks tends to doubt the safety of public money in private sector banks. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (a subsidiary of RBI) has to pay a maximum rupees five lakhs from state funds to each depositor of the bank including those in the 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.
Sections 27 and 28 of the RTI Act give power to Competent Authorities and state governments to draft their own rules which include fixing RTI fees and mode of payment 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. However, the Supreme Court in its verdict dated 20.03.2018 imposed a capping of rupees fifty to be the maximum RTI fee.
India should be governed by the principle “One Nation-One Rule” concerning RTI fees and its mode of payment by clubbing copying charges of the 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 the RTI Act. There must not be any fees for filing First or Second Appeals. To prevent big contractors and others from misusing the provision by filing RTI applications under the names of their workers of the BPL category to get copying charges in thousands of rupees waived off, persons under the BPL category may be required to pay copying charges for copied pages exceeding twenty.
Handling the cost of a postal order of value rupees ten costs the postal-department about rupees fifty with the cost of handling orders by a public authority and bank clearing even extra. Most public authorities require postal-orders under different names even though DoPT in its various circulars has required postal orders towards RTI payments to be in the name of the Accounts Officer only. To overcome the situation, frequent CIC verdicts and administrative requests of CIC should be accepted by the 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 a 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 a situation where public authorities like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) refuse acceptance of RTI fees in cash with the 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 about 1,60,000 post offices rather than just about 4,500 post offices presently. 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 the 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 in Odisha apart from Punjab and Haryana. Those who do not want to disclose their identity can file RTI applications through a post-box.
Police inquiry conducted at the behest of some Indian missions abroad established that a petitioner approached the Central Information Commission with a 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 the portal for viewing of RTI-responses. SMS and email alerts about emailing RTI responses should also be there.
Websites designed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC) for central public authorities should be mandatorily for all states. This has become necessary for states like Odisha which has made online filing of RTI applications a mockery when it is compulsory to download an online-filled RTI application, and then send it by post to the concerned department. Some organisation named Institute-Of-Public-Administration (IPA) has been sending letters to all public authorities coming under the purview of the RTI Act regarding holding paid two-day workshops on charging heavily to the tune of rupees 20000 for local public authorities and rupees 40000 for participants with a spouse. The drafting of invitation letters looks like that of some government-authorised body like the Indian-Institute-Of-Public-Administration (IIPA). Many public authorities confuse the letter as if sent from a government-authorised sending participants to attend an RTI workshop at the cost of the public exchequer. IIPA should take cognisance of the matter to prevent such tactics from minting money by private bodies.
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 that 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 the implementation of the RTI Act 2005. Very few applications are filed under the DRTI Act. All such acts legislated by individual states, before RTI Act 2005 came into existence must be repealed.
(The writer is an RTI consultant holding the Guinness World record, views are personal)
