wednesday, november 22, 2006
Compelling authorities to open their files
Inspection of documents by three RTI activists in the Pune Municipal Corporation on Saturday was considered to be a landmark in the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the country. This was inspection of those documents which should have already been brought in the public domain by the municipal corporation but were not. The objective was to make all public bodies sit up and start publishing documents earmarked for pro-active disclosure under the Act.
==================
Loads of official documents are supposed to be pro-actively published by public authorities under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which has been hailed as one of the most potently drafted transparency legislation’s in the world. Yet, neither public authorities nor even right to information campaigners paid much attention to this powerful provision of the Act.
The RTI Act not only empowers citizens to demand information from public authorities. It also imposes an obligation on public authorities what is called the `duty to publish’. All public authorities were under obligation to bring into public domain certain categories of records from the day the RTI Act came in force that is, on October 12, 2005 so that the common man does not have to go resort to the A ct to seek routine information.
Habits die hard and a vast majority of public authorities chose to ignore the provision and the government, in turn, chose to ignore this blatant defiance of the RTI Act. After all, governments are run by the same tribe that run public authorities.
More than a year has passed since the RTI Act has come in force and barely any document worth any mention has been brought in public domain by public authorities.
Section 4 of the Act mandates that every public authority must publish particulars of recipients of concessions, permits and authorisations granted by it. They are also supposed to pro-actively disseminate information of the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including amounts allocated and details of beneficiaries of such programmes.
The information is to be disseminated to the citizens at large through `notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet (web sites) and “any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority”.
Since no such information was disseminated by any public authority through any of these means as prescribed by the Act, a group of RTI activists decided to resort to “any other means”, that is, of course, “inspection of offices of any public authority”.
They chose the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for their pilot action. They identified documents which must have been brought in public domain by the corporation. Certificates granted by civic body to plot holders on Transferable Development Right (TDR) is an `authorisation’ granted by the PMC as a public authority. These certificates should have been displayed on the official web sites of the civic body and also placed on its notice boards at least for a week or so. Since this was not done, the activists decided to ask for their `inspection’.
Though going strictly by the provision of the Act, they could have just walked into the office of the PMC and demanded inspection of these documents. But they decided to give a reasonable four day notice before inspection. It was addressed to the municipal commissioner, who, as the head of the public authority, is responsible for pro-active disclosure prescribed under Section 4 of the Act
They were pleasantly surprised that the commissioner was responsive. He open up the files for this first-ever inspection by the citizens. When Vijay Kumbhar, Vivek Velankar and Jugal Rathi walked into the office of the city engineer of the PMC for inspection of files on TDRs granted, they had also opened a new chapter in the implementation of the RTI Act.
Let us try to understand the unique nature of the inspection through an easy to understand question-answer series.
1.
Was this the first file inspection under the RTI Act.
Not necessarily. Citizens are empowered under the RTI Act both to demand copies of documents or first carry out an inspection of files and then ask for copies of only specifically identified documents.
One needs to file a requisition for this with the public information officer (PIO) of a public authority with the payment of prescribed fee, wait for his response, visit the office at the time identified by the PIO and then pay certain fee for the time taken for file inspection.
Such file inspection (under Section 6 of the Act) was sporadically carried out by RTI users earlier.
This was different. The documents are supposed to have been published by the public authority but were not. So citizens were constrained to demand their inspection. This is clearly provided for in Section 4 of the Act.
Since this was inspection under Section 4 and not under Section 6, no formal requisition was necessary. No fee needed to be paid.
Notice for this inspection was given to the head of the public authority who is directly responsible for compliance of Section 4. A PIO does not come in picture. A PIO is designated by the head of the public authority to process requisitions from citizens under Section 6.
2.
Was this the first use of Section 4 in demanding information?
There had been sporadic efforts in the country in demanding to know from a public authority details of pro-active disclosure made under Section 4.
Ironically, in all these cases a formal requisition was filed under Section 6. Outcome was not satisfactory. Public authorities passed on details of a lot of innocuous information already brought in public domain, but made no mention of the information that actually pinches.
In the Pune experiment, the activists first identified the documents covered by Section 4, ensured that there had been no pro-active disclosure of these documents through any mode (like display on notice boards or on web sites) and then demanded inspection of these specific documents.
Please also note the circumstances in which an authority can deny your access to documents as listed in the Act under Section 8 and 9 do not apply to the documents identified under Section 4. After all, these are the documents that should have been already under the public domain going strictly by the letter and the spirit of the Act. Where is the question of denying access to documents that are already supposed to have been `published’?
3.
Even if there may not be any requisition fee for inspection under section 4, are you not supposed to pay the cost of information?
Surely. But it must be reiterated that rules framed by the government apply only to formal requisitions under Section 6 and not to access to `published’ documents under Section 4. You pay no fees for the time spent in inspection and if you ask for copies of any documents and if the copies are taken out and handed over to you, you pay the actual cost of photocopying (and not Rs two or whatever per page as prescribed by different rules framed by the central or state governments).
RTI activists from Bengalooru already have obtained a favourable ruling from the Karnataka State Information Commission. The state commission has directed that the rules on cost of information do not apply to copies of documents obtained under section 4 and that the actual cost to be paid to the public authority for photocopying a page of A 4 size should not exceed one rupee per page.
4.
Which documents are covered under section 4? That is, which information should be pro-actively brought in public domain by a public authority?
Apart from many others, your attention is specially brought to the
following:
S 4 (1)(b)(v): The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
S 4 (1)(b)(xi): The budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
S 4 (1)(b)(xii): The manner of execution of subsidy programmes,
including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
S 4 (1)(b)(xiii): Particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it.
Apply your mind. You will realise that half the records in certain offices like that of a local body or the district collectorate should have been `published’ already by these respective public authorities.
– Prakash.kardaley@expressindia.com
—————————–
Reactions to the Pune experiment:
1.
This is correct.I have long held that Sec 4 is the strongest clause of the Act, and has not thus far received the focussed attention that it deserves.
– Wajahat Habubullah, Central Chief Information Commission, New Delhi.
2.
Thats a very good beginning. Right to Information Act, till now, has been interpreted to obtain information under section 6, but the use of this provision has given a new dimension to the use of RTI act. The Public authorities are duty bound to suo motu disclose information under section 4(1) and under sections 4(3) and 4(4), which in turn can be accessed by anyone. This provision was left almost untouched till now and with this exercise of the Pune activists, a new interpretation of the RTI act is known
to all. This will make the RTI movement sharper and more effective than before.
Kudos to you all.
– Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar
RTI activist from Delhi
————————–
A public meeting to discuss `Section 4 offensive’
A public meeting has been convened on Thursday to discuss next action under what the RTI activists call `Section 4 offensive’.
For example:
Vijay Kumbhar has decided to inspect files on properties leased out by the Pune Municipal Corporation. Such leases, he contends, fall under “concessions, permits or authorisations” granted by the public authority that is, the municipal corporation.
Vivek Velankar has decided to inspect files on authorisations granted by the Income Tax department to certain charitable organisations to pass on tax benefit to their donors under Section 80 G of the Income Tax Act.
The venue: Maheshwari Vidya Pracharak Sabhagriha,
Third Floor, Above UTI Mutual Fund Office
Next to Hotel Chetan,
Model Colony
Date and time: Thursday, November 23 at 5.30 p.m.
The venue is close to Model Colony Post Office. It is to the left if you are coming from Lalit Mahal junction and to the right if you are approach from Deep Bungalow junction.
The activists will also discuss a proposal to accord a public felicitations to Dr Nitin Karir, Municipal Commissioner of Pune, for being the first head a public authority in the country who has allowed inspection of records under Section 4 of the Right to Information “Act.