URGENT AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO THE RTI ACT, 2005

The RTI Act, 2005 is one of the best legislations, post independence. But it is not without
some shortcomings. But these shortcomings are visibly becoming fatal for the Act due to
attitude problems of the authorities who have thrived on the colonial system of
governance that had prevailed so far. Under the circumstances the following amendments
are urgently required to make this Act deliver.

1. Sub-sec 2(e). The definition of Competent Authority should be amended to read as:
‘the President of India only’.

Reasons:

1.1. There is NO need for so many competent authorities for interpreting and modifying
the rules under this simple, straightforward Act.

1.2. This sub section, read in conjunction with sub sec 2(g) and Sec 28, adversely affects
the uniform implementation of the Act. In particular, it gives a long rope to
incompetent ‘competent authorities’ to subvert the Act itself.
The instance of the Delhi High Court is relevant here. The application fees had been
increased from Rs 10/- to Rs 500/-, the cost of a page of information has been increased
from Rs 2/- to Rs 5/- and appeal fee has been increased from Rs 0/- to Rs 50/-! While
the cost of Rs 2/- per page of information is high considering that the cost of
photostating an A4 size page is only Re 0.50, including the profit made by commercial
photostating establishments, the introduction of an appeal fee is ridiculous considering
that the 1st appeal is only an opportunity granted to the public authority to correct any
mistakes of its own PIO. Unfortunately these two unfair decisions seem to be the norm
with our so called courts of justice.

2. Sub-sec 2(g). The definition of prescribed should be amended to read as:

‘prescribed’ means prescribed by the rules made under this Act by the Central
Government (only).

Reasons: Same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

3. Sec 4. There should be NO fees or cost for citizens or citizen groups to inspect the
documents required to be disclosed proactively by the public authorities. And the citizens
or citizen groups should be afforded the opportunity to inspect these with notice of a
maximum period of three days, including holidays if any.

Reasons: This is in consonance with the spirit of the Act. It will be grossly unfair if
citizens should be made to pay for information that should have been communicated to
him by the pubic authority proactively to ensure transparency in the functioning of the
public authority.
4. Sec 5(2). The Section should be re-stated as:

Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority at sub-
divisional level or other sub-district level shall designate an officer, within one hundred
days of the enactment of this Act, as an Assistant Public Information Officer to receive
the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the same
forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central
Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be:

Provided that where an application for information or appeal is given to an Assistant

Public Information Officer a period of five days shall be added in computing the period
for response specified under sub-section (1) of section 7.

Reason: The present statement of the Section has created room for an interpretation tht
is impossible to execute where by all public authorities have to appoint an APIO at all
sub-divisions/sub-districts. Such an interpretation will necessitate a village office in
Kerala to designate an APIO at every sub-division/sub-district of Delhi also and vice-
versa. This obviously is an impossible proposition. Logically this interpretation should
NOT be acceptable to anybody too, but unfortunately even the information
commissioners interpret it thus to deny the rights of citizens under this Act. To avoid
such dubious interpretations it is necessary to redraft the clause as given above to ensure
that all public authorities at sub division/sub-district level appoint an APIO for the
purpose mentioned there in. Also kindly note that there is just an APIO and NO
distinction is made as Central or State APIO because given the present structure of
organizations it is necessary to have every APIO accept applications, fees, cost and
appeals to any public authority including the information commissions to ensure that the
objectives of the Act are realized with mass public participation.

5. Sec 6(3). The proviso to be amended as follows:

Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made
as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of
the application. And it would be deemed to have been received by the addressee
within 5 days unless the date of posting and receipt are clearly indicated in the
relevant documents and proof of such dates are preserved by the public
authority and produced on demand.

Reason: The information commissioners are not seen to take cognizance of the delays
within the public authorities resulting in public authorities fudging the dates with
impunity and getting away with it with impunity..For example, sending the information
after 40 days of receipt of application after back dating the letter by 15 days! All the dates
must figure in all communications. That is the PIO should as a matter of routine mention
the date of posting of the application by the applicant and its receipt by his office, as
indicated by the postal cancellation marks, in his response to the applicant. These dates
and similar dates should be mentioned by the applicant/appellant and appellate authorities
also including the information commissioners.

6. Sub Sec 12(3)(iii) may be amended as ‘the Registrar General of the Supreme Court’

Reason: A union cabinet minister should not be expected to act independently in a

committee headed by the Prime Minister. In any case a union cabinet minister to be
nominated by the PM in a committee to be headed by the PM is just making a farce of the
process of objective participation. This is an ideal case where the judiciary can be
effectively co-opted to make appointments in a quasi-judiciary body.

7. Sub Sec 12(5) may be amended as: The Chief Information Commissioner and
Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide
knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management,
journalism, mass media or administration other than government administration.
(Please note that ‘and governance’ has been deleted!)

Reason: It is seen that narrow loyalties are preventing the Information Commissioners,
especially the Chief Information Commissioners who invariably are former bureaucrats,
from imposing penalties mandated under the Act leading to the subversion of the Act by
those tasked and empowered to enforce it. Not so long back Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, when
he was the President of India, asked why is it that almost all the undertrials are from the
marginalised sections of the society. The enforcement of the RTI Act also seems to be
headed towards such unethical and questionable ends.

8. Sec 13(5)(a) and (b) to be amended as

The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Comissioners shall be the

same as that of a munsif in a civil court.

Reason: The munsif in a court deals with a plethora of laws and does a more
cumbersome job. Compared to that the job of information commissioners is child’s play.

9. Sec 14(1) and (2) should be deleted.

Reason: It conflicts with Sec 14(3). Sec 14(3) is simple and self-explanatory.

10. Sub Sec 14(3)(f) may be introduced as: has been evaluated average or below in
performance by an Information Commissioners’ Performance Evaluation Committee.

Reason: There has to be quantifiable parameters for evaluating the performance of the
Information Commissioners and evaluation based on these parameters has to be done by
a duly constituted independent committee/council. There is need for only one such
committee/council at the national level that will evaluate the performance of the state
information commissioners also.
11. Sub Sec 15(5) may be amended as: The State Chief Information Commissioner and
the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with
wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service,
management, journalism, mass media or administration other than government
administration. (Please note that ‘and governance’ has been deleted!)

Reason: Same as given at para 7 above.

12. Sec 16(3)(5). To be amended as

The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Comissioners shall be the

same as that of a munsif in a civil court.

Reason: The munsif in a court deals with a plethora of laws and does a more
cumbersome job. Compared to that the job of information commissioners is child’s play.

13. Sec 17(1) and (2) should be deleted.

Reason: It conflicts with Sec 17(3). Sec 17(3) is simple and self explanatory.

14. Sub Sec 17(3)(f) may be introduced as: has been evaluated average or below in
performance by an Information Commissioners’ Performance Evaluation Committee.

Reason: Same as given at para 10 above.

15. Sub Sec 19(6) may be amended as: An appeal under sub secs (1), (2) or (3) shall be
disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period
not exceeding a total of forty five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be,
for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Reason: At present, the disposal of appeals by the Information Commissioners is totally

lackadaisical. It almost seems that retired bureaucrats with political clouts are having a
picnic at the cost of the exchequer. In one instance, the complete Kerala State Information
Commission had come to a district headquarters and conducted a camp sitting to consider
just 5 cases, in about one hour, when a good 29 cases from the same district were pending
with the Commission! Also during the months of Mar, Apr and May 2007 the KSIC with 4
members had only disposed of 12, 18 and 9 complaints/appeals respectively!

16. Sec 20(1) and 20(2) may be read as 20(2) and 20(3) and 20(1) may be introduced as
follows:

20(1). On receipt of a complaint or appeal Sec 19, the Central Information Commission
or State Information Commission shall give an opportunity of being heard to the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer and their
 respective appellate authorities to ascertain reasons if any for not imposing the penalty
mandated under this Sec.

Reason: The Information Commissioners are provided with all the documents-application,
reply by the PIO, 1st appeal and reply by the AA- pertaining to the case and they can
certainly ascertain from those documents if the information sought is disclosable and also if
the period of 30 days had expired or not. The only thing to be ascertained from the PIO/AA
is whether there were any valid reasons for denying the information or the delay in
providing the information. The orders of the Commission should include the decision on
penalty also to ensure that the applicant is assured that the law has been enforced in its true
spirit.

17. Sec 20(1) (to be read as Sec 20(2) after introducing the above amendment) should be
amended as follows:

Old 20 (1) and new 20(2). Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or
appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer and their appellate authorities, as the case may be, has, without
any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not
furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or
malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete
or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a
penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or
information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed
twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer and their appellate authorities, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall
be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer
and their appellate authorities, as the case may be.

Reason: At present the appellate authorities while being in the chain of processing the
application and have been given 30 days to consider the 1st appeal, are not penalized for
any failure on their part to discharge their responsibilities diligently. This is totally unfair.

18. Sec 20(4) should be introduced as

The Central Information Commissioners or the State Information Commissioners shall

close the appeal only after getting a no objection report from the appellant.
Reason: The decisions of the information commissioners are becoming more and more of a
farce. The decisions I have personally received in all the cases, irrespective of whether it is
the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, are proof of
this farce being perpetuated by the Commissions. The experience of other activists in this
area is not any different.

19. Sec 27(1) may be amended as: The Central Govt may, by notification in the official
gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Reason: same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

20. Sec 28 may be deleted.

Reason: same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

21. Sec 29(2) may be deleted.

Reason: same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

Veteran Major P M Ravindran

2/18, ‘Aathira’
Kalpathy-678003
Tel: 0491-2576042
E-mail: majoravi@gmail.com