HOME

Friday, May 31, 2013

Last nail in the coffin of RTI in Maharashtra.


Last time they stealthily amended the RTI rules , Now they are trying to stealthily  frame appeal procedure rules. In last post, we read the proposed appeal procedure rules. There are several objectionable things in these rules. But most dangerous part is annexure "A" in which the appeal is to be submitted demands , Declaration that the case relating to Information sought for, has not been filed previously/pending with any court/any Authority. If rules come in to existence with this clause that will be the last nail in the coffin of RTI in Maharashtra. With this clause, nobody will be eligible to file RTI application in Maharashtra.

Most of the people use RTI to obtain information, documents related to their work or status of their work. That means People demand information related to their case pending with some authority.If this clause is to be applied then no body will be eligible to obtain information from any public authority. RTI act does not prevent anybody from obtaining information even if the case is pending before any court. Then why Maharashtra government is trying to introduce such type of clause?

These rules also say that while filling second appeal one copy of the appeal or Petition shall also be directly sent to the concerned Public Information (PIO) first appellate authority (FAA) and third party by the appellant.

Why this burden of sending copy of second appeal is being placed on appellants?. As far as public authorities (PA) in Maharashtra are concerned 95% public Information officers (PIO) and appellate authorities do not even mention their or appellate authorities name or address on orders. In addition, how would appellant know about name and address of third party? Third party is actually involved or not? Even if appellant knows the names and addresses of all of these. Why will they accept or receive copy of appeal when they know the consequences of second appeal?

If PIO, FAA, and third party do not accept the copy of appeal, what remedy the appellant has. He will have to file complaint under section 18 of RTI act. That procedure is also very difficult and even if such complaint is filed there very remote possibility that decision of it will be in favour of appellant. Even if information commissioner (IC) commissioner give decision if favour of appellant it will be to accept the appeals only, nothing else. That will be  a very time consuming process.

These rules also state that notice of hearing to the appellant, state public information officer, first appellate authority or the third party in any should be served in any of the following modes, namely
i. service by the party it self
ii . by hand delivery ( dasti) through process delivery
iii. head of the office or department
iv. by displaying  program of the hearing on notice board
v. by displaying the programme of hearing on website;
vi. By registered post with acknowledgement due

Taking into consideration lethargy of most of the commissions clause ( iv ) is likely to be misused. The notice of hearing must be duly served. All the parties must actually receive it.Suppose Information commissions choose only to  display program of the hearing on notice board. Then how would parties know about the hearing ? do these rules expect every party to visit commission's office regularly?.

RTI act does not demand any information from applicant except persons name and contact address. however, these rules want appellant to furnish information related to  name of father / husband , appellants service /business and full address that too on oath . On the ground, that the RTI applicants are being threatened this information is unwarranted.

5 comments:

  1. Thanks for highlighting this disastrous proposed amendment to first and second Appeal. You always do your research well and you have been the best watchdog of the government's malicious moves.What can we as citizens and activists do at this stage? If the bureaucrats and politicians are trying to gag our right to information, can we gag them on not adhering to Section 4 rules which makes it mandatory for all public authorities to put most of the information on public domain voluntarily? My 2 bits

    ReplyDelete
  2. Declaration that the case relating to Information sought for, has not been filed previously/pending with any court/any Authority is clearly because those that have drafted this know that some one has filed or is going to file a corruption case against them. Hence, it is an advance move to ensure that none of their corrupt deeds get exposed by denying information to those who have filed corruption cases.
    There are two courses of action: a) File a PIL in the HC as soon as the rules are out or b) to wait when a case actually comes to light in which those who are involved in drafting these rules have been hauled to court on corruption charges.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The remedy to this is very simple, the applicant should state that 'The Information required is first time only, to the best of the knowledge of the applicant' also all information should be sought before filing a case rather than after filing the case.

    It makes sense under all circumstances too, why would someone approach a court before getting all the information on the matter at hand? Thus the best approach would be to get all the information about the matter before filing the case and in which situation it would be easy for the applicant to affirm that there is no case / appeal pending with any other authority.

    Let the authorities say otherwise and give you the name and address of the other person who has filed RTI in the matter. Then you can get the information that you desire from that person.

    On analysis, it seems that this provision will not (although intended to) harm RTI. But information seekers should oppose the amendment anyway.

    Warm regards

    Vinod Chand

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rules are finalized? did they consult CSO before framing these rules? Are you people challenginging them? Pl share your plan of action ...How can we help you from Gujarat?
    pankti
    MAGP
    magpgujarat@gmail.com
    09909006791 (M)
    www.mahitiadhikar.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, rules re not finalized , But are in process , we will definitely challenge if they come with above mentioned conditions. and thanks for the support

    ReplyDelete