Workshop on Right to Information Act 2005
Held at Block Conference Hall, Chandbali, Bhadrak
Orgd, by Fellowship, Bhadrak and Kishore Club, Chandbali, supported by OXFAM-GB
On 17th of September 2006
The duration of the Workshop was divided into two sessions pre-lunch and post-lunch, the first being the inaugural session followed by a technical session on in-depth discussion on the RTI Act and Orissa Rules made there under.
INAUGURAL SESSION
The Workshop was inaugurated by Prof.Radha Mohan, Orissa Information Commissioner by way of lighting the ceremonial candle at around 11.30 AM. It was presided over by Sri Dwijabar Rout, Chairman Panchayat Samiti. The other dignitaries who shared the dias were BDO Chandbali Block Sri Amar Singh Soren, and the PD DRDA, Bhadrak along with the nominees of local MLA and MP. At first Sri S.M.Farooque, Secretary Fellowship welcomed the guests and participants to the Workshop and gave their brief introduction too. Dwelling on the objective of the Workshop, Sri Farooque observed that it was meant to sensitize the officials, PRI leaders, media persons and NGO activists assembled in one platform about the various provisions of RTI Act along with Orissa Rules 2005, so that there would arise least hindrance to its smooth operationalisation at the grassroots level.
Then BDO Chandbali Block Sri Amar Singh Soren gave a talk on how the RTI Act was being implemented at the Block level. He said that some officials from his Block had attended a Workshop on RTI organized by Panchayatiraj Department at Bhubaneswar on 29th last and were trained therein on some aspects of the new law. The FEO (Fishery Extension Officer) of the Block has been appointed as the PIO of Block, and BDO as its appellate authority. All the GPs of the Block were notified about the matters related to RTI. While all the officials were making sincere efforts to implement the new law, the Block has received only 4 applications under the Act so far. The BDO in concluding his talk appealed to all the persons present to extend necessary cooperation to the concerned officials for the implementation of RTI law into a success at the Block level.
The next speaker was the Project Director DRDA (District Rural Development Agency), Bhadrak, in his talk touched upon various aspects of the theme of the day. He observed that the British rulers with an aim to keep the Indian subjects in dark about the way they administered the country had introduced the Official Secrets Act 1923, which continued in the post-independence period too. But it was felt that under democracy, no real problem for the country or public interest would ever arise if the official information was disclosed to the people. And that was the chief rationale for legislating RTI Act 2005. Under this Act except a few sensitive areas which have been well laid down in the Act itself, no official information could be withheld from the public. Specifically speaking, the Block office as such had nothing to hide from the people under this Act. Meanwhile the Orissa RTI Rules has been published, wherein the PIOs and departmental authorities have been announced for all State Government offices. As for his office, the Additional PD was the PIO while he the PD the 1st appellate authority. The Police Stations and Banks were covered under the Act too. Even the Supreme Court and High Courts were subject to this law. Each public authority was supposed to disclose suo moto information about their own powers and functions, and as he knew the district administration of Bhadrak had already put such proactive disclosures on the website for the knowledge of all concerned. Now his office is busy for compiling and web-publishing all the lists of BPL and beneficiaries of schemes like Indira Awas Yozana. A GP portal has also been launched, in which all the GP level data on developmental schemes would be available online. As a matter of fact, all such stupendous works could be possible due to the ongoing revolution in information technology, which has surpassed in its impact and significance all the great achievements made by human ingenuity over millennia, observed the PD while concluding his speech.
It is worth mentioning that in course of his speech, the PD had made in good faith a specific observation about the RTI law, which was not true as such. He had observed that the Governors and Presidents being the highest seats of authority, were declared competent authorities under the RTI Act and therefore any final interpretation of a disputed provision of the Act rested with them. During the lunch session, Sri Chitta Behera, the resource person clarified in the presence of Prof. Radha Mohan that contrary to what the PD thought, the word ‘competent authority’ as used in the Sections 2 and 28 of the Act meant the authority to make rules under the Act for those public authorities, which were functioning under their control or supervision. And so far the question of interpretation was concerned; the RTI Act has bestowed the final authority on Central and State Information Commissions, whose say is binding on all public authorities including President or Governor, Speaker or Chief Justice of Supreme Court or a High Court. The PD seemed to have taken note of the comments so made by Sri Behera.
Then Prof Radhamohan delivered his inaugural address spanning about one and half hours. Speaking about the background to RTI Act 05, he said, such an Act should have been enforced along with the proclamation of the Constitution in 1950 itself. Since the State runs on people’s money, so they have a right to know all its affairs. Sweden was the first country to legislate people’s right to know, as early as last quarter of the 18th century. Like Sweden quite some Scandinavian countries had legislated RTI long back and perhaps for this reason they have less corruption in their public life. England, the mother of Parliamentary democracy has however introduced RTI, titled as Freedom of Information Act since 2000 only. Japan also recently enacted the RTI law. Like the maxim ‘Better late than never’, India had finally got it enforced in 2005, though the Supreme Court in course of various judgements spread over decades had emphasized the need for transparency in all the transactions by the State. The Rajasthan movement for right to information in the last decade, conducted under the leadership of Mrs.Aruna Roy of KKMS in the last decade had in fact spurred the legislators and policy makers on to making of a RTI law for the whole country.
Then speaking on the salient features of the Act, Prof.Radhamohan mentioned the following points:
· Whatever information is given to the Parliament or an Assembly, can be given to a citizen.
· The information seeker can’t be asked by the PIO as to why he was seeking a particular piece of information.
· Unlike the multi-level, unending hierarchical system that characterizes the grievance redressal mechanism characteristic of the Governmental departments or judicial courts, the appellate mechanism under the RTI Act has only 2 stages, first appeal before the departmental appellate authority and second appeal before the Information Commission.
· In all previous legislations, there existed penalty provision against the citizens, but the RTI Act provided for penalty against the officials both in terms of monetary fine and disciplinary action.
· Any information that relates to an event or occurrence that has taken place within 20 years has to be disclosed. (Sri Behera however pointed out to Prof. Radhamohan during the lunch hour at the P.W.D. Inspection Bunglow that the actual position in this matter is just the reverse as per the Section 8(3) of the Act that read inter alia, “.. any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6 shall be provided to any person …”, to which Prof.Radhamohan agreed instantly).
Prof.Radhamohan then dealt with what he considered to be the flaws in the Act itself. Firstly, the original draft bill contained a stronger penalty provision amounting to monetary fine or imprisonment or both, depending upon the gravity of the act of violation of the law committed by the concerned official. But the final draft, which we find today in the shape of the Act has missed the imprisonment factor. Secondly, the Act doesn’t provide any time limit within which the Commission is supposed to dispose of a 2nd appeal, though there exists a time limit of 30 to 45 days for the 1st appeal to be disposed of. In his personal opinion, there should be a time limit for the disposal of second appeals too. Thirdly, since the RTI Act is a central legislation, there should be a uniform set of rules binding on both Centre and all the States. However as per the Act, Centre and each State has been empowered to make their respective Rules separately, as a result of which widely dissimilar rules have been made, complicating thereby the procedure to be followed in respect of application and appeal under the Act on the part of the information seeking citizen.
Speaking on the Orissa RTI Rules, which has drawn a lot of criticism from various quarters, Prof.Radhamohan observed that since the State Rules were announced prior to the announcement of the Central Rules, the former had gone the way as it was. (However, Sri Behera pointed out to Prof. Radhamohan during the lunch hour that there was a factual error in the statement so made. The Central Rules was notified on the 16th of September 2005 while the notification of the Orissa State Rules has been dated 1st October, though actually announced to the public through media on 7th of October’ 05. Then Prof.Radhamohan replied that on the basis of a hearsay from a Secretary of the Government, he had made the said statement but would now verify it). He however hoped that the operational anomalies afflicting the current situation around the Act and Rules could be overcome within coming 2 years. Though the Government departments were supposed to impart awareness and training about the Act among the people, they were not doing so, and that was why the Commission took up this job of attending seminars and workshops being held across the State.
In concluding his speech, Prof.Radhamohan gave two examples from the days of Delhi State RTI Act to show how two poor slum dwellers named Triveni and Munna by using the RTI Act with the help of Parivartan an NGO, had received their respective Antodaya Card and Ration Card, to supply which the concerned officials were dillydallying for a pretty long time. Then he gave a recent example from Orissa without of course naming the man and office concerned, in which a man could get the registration certificate for which he was labouring long in vain, just by mentioning the RTI Act. Now the common people everywhere in Orissa should start exercising the rights given to them under the new law to achieve similar gains.
Interaction with the State Commissioner:
A local journalist: He asked a question, in which he complained that he had been asking at the Chandbali Block office for an application form under the RTI Act for a long time and it was not supplied to him until the end of February. Having got the form he applied duly along with the application fee of Rs.20/- for certain information relating to various schemes operating at the Block level. But recently the concerned PIO said that as much as Rs.7,000/- would be required to be deposited by him towards the supply of the said information. How was justified?
The PIO of the Block: He was present then, and immediately told his side of the case. As per his statement the office never refused to give the information but just wanted the applicant to wait for some days more, since the data he was asking for were vast in volume covered under various schemes and spanning several years, and their compilation would certainly take quite some time. As for the cost, the PIO commented that based upon the rate of charges fixed under the Orissa RTI Rules i.e. Rs.5/- per page, the cost of information that he had quoted before the applicant was justified.
The Information Commissioner: Without responding to the particular question so raised, Prof.Radhamohan recounted a recent case from Bolangir where a PIO had quoted as much as Rs. 2,300/- to be submitted for supplying the information asked for. When the applicant complained before him about such exorbitant amount, then the Commissioner advised the concerned PIO to allow first an inspection of the concerned records by the applicant, and in course of the information, the applicant might select only a few pages that he actually needed in stead of the entire volume of material that contained the relevant papers. Having described this story, the Commissioner came back to the issue at hand and advised the applicant to abridge his query as much as possible so as to enable the concerned official to comply with his request for information. But the applicant didn’t seem to concede to this advice of the Commissioner.
Sri Chitta Behera: Sri Behera, the resource person on the occasion intervened at this point to speak in favour of the applicant who has so far been denied information by the PIO. He requested the Commissioner to advise the applicant in specific terms as to how he could get all the information that he desired in an affordable manner. Sri Behera’s contention was that since all the information asked for came under the category of suo moto disclosures by a public authority under Section 4 of the Act, the inspection thereof involved no cost and the printed information asked for could be provided free of cost or at a fee to be prescribed by the Govt of Orissa under Section 4(4) of the Act. So the Commissioner in stead of advising the applicant who has already been aggrieved, should specifically advise the PIO as to how to deliver the requested information to the satisfaction of the applicant.
Commissioner: Sensing that the discussion over the dispute might drag on for hours if at all allowed in this manner, he observed that as he was not then listening to both sides as the Commissioner in an official capacity, it would be advisable if after his departure the said theme could be discussed in a threadbare manner by both sides in the presence of the persons like Sri Chitta Behera and PD DRDA.
The deliberation of the inaugural session came to a close at around 2.30 PM after a vote of thanks to the chair, guests and participants was offered by Sri Sudhir Kumar Mohanty of Kshore Club.
POST-LUNCH: BUSINESS SESSION
The post-lunch session started around 3.30 PM and continued upto 5 PM. Sri Chitta Behera the resource person conducted the session while Sri S.M.Farooque of Fellowship acted as its moderator. The participants were PRI representatives, Block officials and some NGO activists. The specific objective of the session was to sensistise the participants about the practical method that a citizen should adopt to access official information in the quickest, easiest and cheapest manner on one hand and the kind of preparedness that a public authority should achieve in order to provide the requested information to any member of the public duly as required under the RTI Act.
To start with, Sri Behera pointed his finger separately at the two Oriya posters hanging on the opposite walls of the meeting hall; one poster published by Parivartan, an NGO based in Malkangiri informed about how to apply with an application fee and then pay the subsequent fees as likely to be charged by the PIO in order to obtain any information under the Act; and the other, published by CASA, informed that in order to inspect and obtain as well any information covered under 17 categories of suo moto disclosure by a public authority, one needn’t apply, nor pay any application or other fees and nor wait for even a single day. It is an irony that while only a select band of people know about the second, easy-to-use option, most of the officers along with the Information Commissioners and even civil society groups harp on the first one, i.e. the difficult option of applying, paying and waiting to get a piece of information. The theme of the current session should therefore be focused on the option that involves the least cost, effort and time in the matter of disclosure by the public authorities and receipt by the citizens of all kinds of information generally conceived under the Act.
At this stage, the PIO of the Block stood up and questioned, ‘How can you say that the information shall be supplied to a person without he/she making any application? In response Sri Behera first said that there were two kinds of information conceived under the Act; the first one for which an application has to be made under Section 6(1), and the second one related to the suo moto dissemination to be made by each public authority, which would be available to the citizens irrespective of one applied for it or not. In substantiation of this statement, Sri Behera requested the PIO to read out Section 4(2) of the Act, which ran, “It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps . . . . to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, . . .. so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain it.” Thus when the information is to be made available from their side, why should one have to apply and wait to obtain the same?, quipped Sri Behera.
Then the PIO asked the next question, “How can you say that the public have the right to instant access to the official information?” In response, Sri Behera requested him to read out ‘Explanation to Section 4’ of the Act wherein the ‘dissemination’ is defined as “making known or communicated the information the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority”. Thus the Act enjoins upon each public authority to get their offices inspected by the members of the public, and all the information as mentioned under Section 4(1b) of the Act should have been kept ready by 120th day of the commencement of the Act i.e. by 12th of October 05, so that any member of the public as soon as he or she desires can inspect it.
The next question raised by the PIO was, “How do you say that the information covered under Section 4(1b) shall be made available free of cost?” In response, Sri Behera requested him to read out the Section 4(4) that ran, “All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.” Sri Behera added that mark the words, ‘free or at such cost of the medium or print cost price as may be prescribed’. Now let us see, whether any fee under Section 4(4) has been prescribed at all? He requested the PIO to read out the Rule 2(1c) under Orissa RTI Rules 2005 wherein the ‘fee’ has been defined. It was found that only 3 kinds of fees has been mentioned therein such as fee under Section 6(1), fee under Section 7(1) and fee under Section 7(5). Thus Orissa Rules has missed to prescribe any fee under Section 4(4) of the Act, though the Section 27(2) of the Act has clearly given the power to an appropriate Government to prescribe it, if they liked to. Thus when the State Rules has not prescribed any fee under Section 4(4), the other option under the Act shall obviously hold good i.e. all the information covered under Section 4 shall be available ‘free’.
The PIO then asked, “How do you justify the proposition for supplying the information under Section 4 absolutely ‘free’ on the basis of the Orissa Rules?”. Sri Behera in response requested him to read out the Rule 2(2) under Orissa RTI Rules that ran, “Words and expressions used but not defined in these rules shall have the same meaning as assigned to them under the Act?” In practical terms it means that if the Orissa Rules has missed to define the fee payable under Section 4(4) of the Act, then as per the above read provision under the Orissa Rules itself, every public authority is obliged to abide by the alternative direction given under Section 4(4) of the Act i.e. to provide the concerned information ‘free’ to the public.
The PIO again asked, “What about the Schedule of Fees chargeable against various items under the Orissa RTI Rules 2005?” In response Sri Behera requested the PIO to read the sub-title of the Schedule i.e. ‘See Rules 4 and 7’. And again the PIO was told to read Rule 4, the opening sub-sentence of which ran, “A citizen desirous of any information may apply for information in Form A to the Public Information Officer, with the required fee in shape of Treasury Challan or cash as specified in the Schedule under the appropriate head of account: ” It means that the said Schedule is relevant when one applies in Form A. Then the PIO was asked to take a glance at the second sub-title to the Form A, that reads, ‘An application for information under Section 6(1) of the Act’. Thus the Schedule of Fees under Orissa Rules shall be relevant once a person chooses to apply only in Form A for information under Section 6(1), but not for somebody who chooses information under Section 4. Then the PIO was requested to read Rule 7, the other reference made in the sub-title of the above said Schedule. It was found that the Rule 7 dealt with the 1st and 2nd appeals as provided under the Section 19 (1) and (3) of the RTI Act respectively. Even the Complaint envisaged under Section 18(1) remains outside the purview of the Rule 7 and Schedule of Fees under Orissa Rules. Thus to recapitulate, the Schedule of Fees as prescribed under the Orissa Rules is applicable only if one applied for information under Section 6(1) and appeals under Section 19 (1) and (3) of the Act, not otherwise. It means that if one seeks information under Section 4 or complains under Section 18 of the Act, the Orissa’s Schedule of Fees shall not come into play at all.
The last question that was raised by the PIO, “Since the Orissa Rules has prescribed Rs.15/- towards the fee of inspection per hour, why should we no charge it when one comes for any kind of inspection?” Sri Behera requested him to again look at the Schedule which contains inter alia the rate for inspection per hour or a fraction thereof. The Schedule related to those fees which are chargeable if one applied in Form -A for information under Section 6(1) of the Act. And as per the definition of ‘Right to Information’ as given under Section 2(j) of the Act, it included the ‘right to inspection of work, documents and records’. And as already dealt with above, one can go for inspection of these repositories of information under Section 4 and that too free of cost. But if one applies for inspection under Section 6(1), then he or she might have to pay as per the Orissa Rules. So the Act and Rules read together establishes the principle beyond any shade of doubt that one inspection i.e. under Section 4 is free, while the other one, under the Section 6(1) is priced. Accordingly a PIO can’t charge any fee against a person seeking inspection under Section 4 of the Act.
Before concluding his talk, Sri Behera reverted to the question put by a journalist friend to the Information Commissioner for giving his observations on the same. He opined that since the information on the performance of various beneficiary-oriented schemes sought for by the applicant was in the nature of suo moto disclosures covered under Section 4(1b), there was no need for submitting any application along with application fee for the purpose. He could have straightaway asked for inspection of all the relevant records that dealt with the concerned information. The PIO also shouldn’t have asked for money to be deposited towards the cost of providing the information which were well covered under Section 4 of the Act. It seems both the applicant and PIO had missed to understand the crucial difference between the information covered under Section 4 and that under Section 6. Since the applicant was absent during the discussion, Sri Behera advised the PIO to call the applicant from his side and first allow him to inspect the records that carried the information asked for, without charging any fee against the said inspection.
After the open dialogue between Sri Behera the resource person and the Block PIO was over, Sri S.M.Farooque, who was moderating the session, asked for any other doubt or question that the participants might want to raise for getting clarified. But the participants expressed their full satisfaction about the discussion and clarification made in a dialogic manner by the resource person on the crucial theme of the Section 4 of the RTI Act. Then the assembled participants wanted that a Resolution might be passed on the salient points discussed in the Workshop, for submission to all the concerned authorities for necessary action at their end. Following the adoption of the Resolution of the day, the Workshop came to a formal close, as announced by Sri S.M.farooque, who was moderating the session.
RESOLUTION
“Today on 17th of September 2006, a Workshop on Right to Information Act 2005 was held in the Block Conference Hall, Chandbali under the joint aegis of Fellowship, Bhadrak and Kishore Club, Chandbali, supported by Oxfam-G.B. It was inaugurated by Prof. Radhamohan, Orissa Information Commissioner and addressed by him too among others. The PD DRDA of Bhadrak district, BDO Chandbali and quite some officers of the Block took part in the deliberations of the Workshop too. Besides it was presided over by the Chairman Chandbali Panchayat Samiti Sri Dwijabar Rout while many PRI representatives from all over the Block attended it along with the media persons. In course of the two sessions of the Workshop held pre-lunch and post-lunch, the RTI Act and Orissa RTI Rules made thereunder were subject to threadbare discussion, following which a two-point Resolution was adopted unanimously by the participants, which is as follows:
1) The Orissa RTI Rules-2005 which is too complex and cost-heavy for the use of the common people, should be amended overall to make it simple, easily affordable and accessible by them.
2) Steps should be taken at the Government level to strengthen the infrastructural base of the public authorities to enable them to provide information in a timely, cost-effective and proper manner to the people as required under the RTI Act 2005.”
Signed on behalf of the participants of the Workshop, by:
Sri Sudhir Kumar Mohanty, Sri S.M.Farooque
Kishore Club, Chandbali, Bhadrak Secretary, Fellowship,
Tarini Bhavan,
Women’s College Road, Santhia
Post Box No- 03, Bhadrak- 756100
Tel: 06784-250055, 250308, 250189®
FAX (PP) No.250384,
Email: fello_ship@yahoo.com
Website: visitfellowshop.8k.com