Delaying tactics under RTI Act

With best intentions, the UPA government passed an unprecedented piece of legislation in the form of Right to Information Act. It is a real step forward in the direction of peoples empowerment , transparency in the working of government offices and the accountability of the bureaucracy . But the bureaucracy has never been in favour of this kind of legislation. They have always thought themselves to be masters not the servants of the people. As a applicant under Right to Information Act we have varied experience sweet as well as sour. We found that in large number of cases they have reconciled themselves and are willing to share information they have. But in many cases we have also noted that they are not cooperating . In some cases they are adopting delaying tactics . Here we are giving some tactics employed by them where wish to stone wall themselves and refuse to accede the request. With more and more incidents of Government officials not acceding to requests under the Right to Information Act or not providing the correct information under the RTI Act, it is high time the state government imposes some more stricter penalties which will make these officials comply. For delaying the information these officials are adopting various tactics to avoid penalty prescribed under RTI Act. Some of the tactics being adopted by them to delay the information are as follows:

1. Documentation charges : Under Section 7(3) of RTI Act documentation charges is payable at the rate prescribed under RTI rules no 4 of RTI Fees and Cost rules . At present documentation charges is Rs 2 per page . It has been our experience in many cases that the obligation on the part of applicant to deposit fee is misutilised by most of PIOs. Some times PIO of a public writes a letter to the applicant just one or two days before the limit period of 30 days to deposit the documentation charges for “X” number of papers on adhoc basis even though the information in many cases are not ready for dispatch. In this process of writing letter and reaching the same to the applicant PIO gets extra time to gather the information thinking that applicant may not come forward to deposit the amount or if he comes then they will start compiling the information. In some cases like MCD once a applicant goes to deposit documentation charges as demanded he or she is asked to deposit fees at a office which is located at different place 4 to 10 kms away from the PIO office..

In some cases PIO will demand a huge amount as documentation charges from the applicant in order to furnish the desired information. In case the applicant demands to see the information before depositing the money in order to verify the contents of information as per his requirement or not it is bluntly refused.

Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation : The interpretation given by PIO CGEWHO to the provision under Section 7(3) is quite different from others and interesting. In its reply to a application the office wrote a letter to applicant to deposit Rs 10600 as cost of collection and collating the information. As per their contention this cost includes the salary of those employees who will be deployed by them in collecting the information. As per their contention the cost of collection of information is in addition to the documentation charges prescribed under RTI Act.

2. Diverting of resources disproportionately: The exemption provision under Section 7(9) is being misused by many public authorities with impunity. If some one demands an information from a public authority for which the authority has to make some extra effort in digging out the information , many public authorities are taking refuge under this provision with a answer that providing of information will divert the resources of public authorities disproportionately. This plea is being taken not by any small company with little resources at their disposal but by big Fortune 500 companies like Indian Oil , BPCL, BHEL etc. In the Act there is no clarity as to what will constitute as diverting of resources disproportionately.

3. Commercial Confidence : Exemption under Section 8 (1)(d) gives power to PIO to deny information in the name of commercial confidence . This exemption provision is being misused by many renowned companies like Indian Oil, NTPC etc. Copy of Internal Audit which gives full account of internal deficiencies was denied by NTPC , Indian Oil under the garb of provision of commercial confidentiality . The RTI Act is very much clear on this issue . It states that commercial confidence matters are those papers by which the third party competitive interest is not affected . By disclosing the internal audit reports no third party interest is infringed but still information is denied .

4. Visit to office : In some cases PIOs instead of providing information insist for applicant visit to their office and clarify them the need for information. It is surprising that the same information is being supplied by other authorities without any difficult . This is only delaying tactic which many PIOs adopt.

Above are only few instances of how public authorities adopt delaying tactics in furnishing the information . There are other methods also which are adopted by some authorities to skip the information. Under Section 7 (3) application has to be transferred within 5 days from one public authority to different public authority is case if application is closely related to another. We have found that in many cases application is transferred much after the prescribed 5 days , some times 15-20 days. Irony fact is that transferee public authority again takes 30 days for furnishing the information to applicant where as 15-20 days have already passed.

It has been found that in most of cases Appellate Authority also take the same stand as was taken by their PIOs. After rejection of information of appeal by Appellate Authority the next appeal lies with CIC. Here also it takes months to fix the date of hearing as thousands of application are already pending . In RTI Act there are provisions for deducting penalties from the salaries of errant officials. In very few cases penalty by way of deduction from the salary has been imposed by CIC . Merely deducting of salaries is not sufficient because if one considers the people who are involved or who are being penalized then this is a mere pittance. Either the state government passes a law that if the person continues committing the same offence either dismissal or a jail term. Government officials should be made aware that they have certain responsibilities to the people. That they are government servants and have to be responsive to what the people want. The fact that information is being sought under the Right to Information Act, indicates that something wrong has happened. So it is beneficial to all that the correct information is given immediately and correctly. By providing false information or delaying the process, the government officials are indirectly becoming accessories to that mistake which goes against the Right to Information Act. Therefore it is high time, that the state authorities strengthen the punishment and ensure that once punished these officials do not commit the same mistake again and is a lesson to others not to do the same.