RI6HT TO INFORMATION ACT- A CASE STUDY FOR SUBVERSION OF IAWS BY PUBLIC SERVANTS

P M RAVINDRAN, raviforjustice@gmail.com, http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in

"Laws are like cobwebs, insects get caught, birds just fly through"

L. The above quote could not have been more true than in the lndian context and the RTI Act proves it, if any such

proof was needed. For a change, this is one law that is as simple as simple can be, clear and unambiguous and

can be understood by anyone who has actually passed 5th standard. And the way it has been subverted is

something that should make any citizen worth the name sit up and actl

The orisinal sins.

2. Competent Authorities and Rules. Sec 2(e) read with Sec 28 which defines certain competent authorities and

empowers them to prescribe the fees/additional fees (cost). ln the event most of the courts havg prescribed

exorbitant fees/cost and even fees for L't appeal, in violation of the provision at Sec 7(5) of the.Act and definitely

inflagrantviolationof thespiritofthelawasprovidedinSec 4(2)of theAct(ltshall beaconstahtendeavourofevery public authority to take steps in accordance with the reqUirements of clause (b) of sub-se&ion (1) to

provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means-of

communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain

information.) And as was bound to happen, the Kerala Govt has emulated'this and amended its own rules in

2OO7 to the disadvantage of the citizen (Refer Kerala Gazette (EO) No 2290 dated 22/121200711

3. Selection Committees. Sec 12(3) and 15(3) on the constitution of the committees for selecting information

commissioners. The Leaders of the Opposition have been included to project some objectivity but in the absence" of a mandate for unanimity they are just like scarecrows!

4. Status. pav and perks of lnformation Commissioneis. Sec 13(5) and 16(5) have conferred the status of CEC, EC

and Chief Secretary to the State Government to information commissioners whose job is simpler and much less

demanding than that of the munsif. This has led to information commissions being reduced to rehabilitation

homes for the worst public servants retiring from service!

The Crimes of Nodal Departments.

The DoPT. This is the nodal dept of the Central Govt dealing with RTl. However their resistance to disclosing filenotings and confrontation with the Central lnformation Commission has been adequately reported. But theirblatant subversion of the law through'an OM (No FlO/212008-lR dated 24 Sep 2010) directing, in effect, to bury

Sec 6(3)of the law, has not been reported at all. Worse, even those'great' RTI campaigners like Aruna Roy,

Aravind Kejriwaletc seem to have not noticed itl By the way, the claim that it has the approval of the CIC of theCentral lnformation Commission has bedn proved to be a lie! However, this OM has been promptly circulated inKerala by the GAD through their letter No 732O9lCdn.sltO/cAD dated 18 Oct 2010 and is being complied withby almost every public authority with impunity!

GAD. GoK. Two of their a nti-RTl acts have a lready been highlighted in par:a 2 a nd 5. Worse, to complaintssubmitted to the CM during his public contact programs (copies are available athttp://raviforiustice. bloespot.com/2011/11lchief-m inisters-public-contact-progra m.htm I

and http://www.slideshare.net/raviforiustice/comp-cmk-isp2015ksic110415 ) this dept had replied saying that"being a constitutional body State Govt could not interfere in the functioning of the SIC' (their letter No

90105/Cdn5 lttlCA.o dared L/6/12 refers). This not only exposes their incompetence but total ignorance of theirjob. Sec 27(2)(el and (f) are unambiguous about the responsibility of the government regarding regulating theprocedures followed by the information commissions and any other matter which is required or may beprescribed! lt is worth recollecting that in UP Mayawati- headed governrnent had actually removed their ClC, a

former judge of the high court, who later reportedly committed suicide! ln Kerala, in contrast, an informationcommissioner has been reportedly paid Rs 34lakhs and kept on the rolls without doing even a paisa worth of jobfor the last three years even when complaints and appeals have been pilingl

t,,.5.

6.

lnformation Commissions. I

7. Failure to impose mandated penaltv. As has been brought out earlier the information commissions, as with ,-

other quasijudicial organisations, had been evidently envisaged as rehabilitation homes for the worst public

servants after their retirement from their regular employment. The information commissioners have to be held

singularly responsible for the murder of the RTI Act. The most important of their lapses is, of course, the failureto comply with Sec 20 of the Act which mandates imposing penalty for lapses, including delay in providing

information sought. Even while directing information to be provided the lapse of the commissioners to impose

the mandated penalty has led to (a) subversion of the law, (b) loss to the exchequer to the tune of crores ofrupees every month and (c) apprehensions of corruption whereby the commissioners can be logically believed tohave accepted bribes from the defaulting PlOs to 'fail'to impose the penaltyl

8. Failure to streamline their office functions. Right from acknowledging receipts of complaints and appeals totheir disposal smacks of whims and fancies, arbitrariness and waywardness ruling the roost. (Please see thefollowing blogs: . ihttpll/raviforiustice. blosspot.in12012/02lursent-amend ments-needed-to-rti-act.htm l, fhttp://raviforiustice.blogspot.in/2011/10/national-convention-on-rti-uncovered.htm l, $http://raviforiustice.blogspot.com/2012l01-lrti-old-application-to-president-to.html,

http:/lraviforiustice,bloespot. inl20L2l06/rti-act:shailesh-ea nd h i-a nd. htm l,

http://raviforiustice.blogspqt.in/201"2/10/a-saga-of-blatant-treason-severi-years,htfnletc

9. Blatantlv subversive orders. The information commissioners have been issuing blatantly subversive orders. lnfact looking for correct orders would be like looking for the proverbial needle in a hay stackl Some of these have

again been published at the website http://raviforiustice.blosspot.in as a series under the title Exposing the' idiots and traitors amoung public servants.

Judiciarv.

10. The 1't instance that comes to mind is the notorious case popularly known as the judges assets case. To anapplication by a citizen, Subhash Agarwal, the then CJl, K G Balakrishnan, had infamously claimed that his officewas out of purview of the RTI Act. Needless to say, it only exposed his ignorance and incompetence to hold that /high office of this nation! ln the event, a bench comprising allthe information commissioners of the Central (

. lnformation Commission (not that the numbers mattered!) held the Cjlwrong and this decision was upheld by a \single bench and division bench of the Delhi High Court too. lt is now pending with the apex court. But one goodthing happened in the meanwhile. A couple of judges came out openly to disclose not only whether they hadsubmitted their statements of assets to the CJ but even their statementsl This had a catalytic effect and now thestatements of assets of most of the judges are available in public domain | (And, like they say in our own courts,the judge can infer the reasons why the rest have not disclosed their stateqrentsl)

11-. Amoung the other questionable actions of our judiciary, in the context of the RTI Act, one more example isconsidered pertinent. we are all aware that the High Court of Kerala had held bandhs illegal and this decisionwas upheld by the apex court too. But the same activity is now being perpetrated in a different name now-hartals! So it was deemed necessary to clarify whether it was the term bandh that was held illegal or theactivities that are identified with it. And application to the Home Dept got transferred to the Law Dept and finallyto the High Court itself where the Plo decided that since it pertained to a judicial matter it is not to be disclosedas per the High Court RTt Rulesl

Conclusion.

12' Now that the RTI Act has been laid to rest, unceremoniously, anybody wishing to use this law should do it withthe explicit purpose of only exposing atleast three idiots/traitors among public servants- the public informationofficer, the L't appellate authority and the information commissionerl