Resolution of the Workshop on Orissa RTI Rules under RTI Act 2005 held at Cuttack on 15.10.2005 under the joint aegis of
District NGO Coordination Committee and Right to Food Campaign, Orissa
A Workshop for the members and groups of civil society in the State was held at Hotel Dwaraka, Cuttack on 15.10.2005 to review the Govt of Orissa’s recently announced Rules under RTI Act 2005 and suggest an alternative course of action for its necessary reform if felt necessary.
The eminent and veteran social leader Mrs.Manorama Mohapatra Editor the Samaj, former Chief Minister Mr.Giridhar Gamango and Mr.Gopal Chandra Nanda, Director Vigilance Orissa were among others who addressed the Workshop. Besides the veteran consumer activist Mr.Kedar Nath Jena of FOCO, Mr.Khirod Kumar Rout, Joint Secretary Orissa High Court Bar Association and Mr.Ashok Kumar Dalai, Advocate of Orissa High Court also gave their views on the topic. Both the conveners of the event, Mr.Pradip Pradhan Convener Orissa Right to Food Campaign and Mr.Lalit Kumar Mishra Convener District NGO Coordination Committee Cuttack apprised the house on the latest situation that has emerged from the objectionable, defect-ridden Rules made by the Govt of Orissa under the Act. Mr.Chitta Behera a social scientist, in course of his talk specifically pointed out the ultravires provisions contained in the Orissa RTI Rules vis-à-vis the RTI Act. Besides a host of social activists from different parts of the State took part in the deliberations.
Based on the consensus of the house, a Resolution was passed for endorsement to the Governor Orissa in whose name the notification for Orissa RTI Rules has been made and who is therefore expected to take appropriate remedial action for effecting appropriate Rules for citizen-friendly operationalisation of the RTI Act in the State. The Resolution contained the following suggestions:
1. Abolition of Rule-10 (Calculation of cost of Damage), of Rule-12 (Deposit of Expenditure) and of Rule-13 (Realisation of penalties and damage) from the Orissa RTI Rules, since these are outrageously ultravires of the mother Law i.e., the Right to Information Act 2005.
2. (A) Abolition of the provision made under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule-4 under Orissa RTI Rules that the Applicant has to satisfy the PIO about his/her identity before his/her application is considered.
(B) Abolition of the provision made under Sub-rule2(e) on the “identity” of an applicant defined as “an evidence to show the citizenship like an electoral photo identity card/passport or any other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the person”, which is ultravires of the Section-6 of the RTI Act.
3. (A) The Form-A (Application for Information) is too long, complex and over-demanding one, which should be reduced to five to six columns only. The Column-2 asking for Father/ Spouse name, Column-3 asking for permanent address and Column-4 asking for particulars in respect of identity of the Applicant and Column-8( Is this information not made available by the Public Authority) are absolutely redundant and ultravires too vis-à-vis the section6(2) of the RTI Act and should therefore be struck off from the form-A.
(B) The Application Form should be made optional and no application for information should be rejected as provided currently under Form-C on the ground that the Application Form has not been filled up “complete in all respect”, in view of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
4. The Form-B should mention the detail break up of the fees that a citizen has to pay, as required under the Section 7(3a) of the RTI Act.
5. The Application Fees for 1st Appeal and 2nd Appeal are ultravires of the sections 27 and 28 of the RTI Act in which the specific kinds of fees allowable under the Act have been mentioned. Moreover, the Form-D and Form-E made for the purpose of making appeals do not contain a Form for acknowledgement receipt to be issued to citizen-applicant on submission of his/her appeal.
6. (A) A serious technical incongruity has been noticed between Form-G (Cash register) where various modes of payment such as Challan, Bank Draft and Cash have been mentioned at Column-4, whereas the Schedule on fees allows only treasury challan and cash. It is suggested that various other modes payment such as postal order, money order, Bank cheque and ATM should be allowed too for the convenience of citizens at large.
(B) Another serious case of incongruity is that while the Rules 4(1) allows the electronic mail system for the applicant, the Form-A containing the Application Form omits to mention it and limits the correspondence to post or person.
7. The various kinds of fees as prescribed under the schedule are unbearably exorbitant giving the impression, as if the people of Orissa are richest in India and have the highest paying capacity to afford them. The amount of said fees should be drastically reduced in compatibility with the Section-4(4) and Section-7(5) of the RTI Act.
8. The Orissa RTI Rules should provide for the following matters as mandated under the RTI Act.
a. Transfer of Application for information from one PIO to another PIO when the information asked for is available with the latter, as required under section 6(3) of the Act.
b. Provision for the PIO to help the persons unable to write and persons sensorily disabled to access and inspect the documents in the matter of application writing and inspection as required under section-6(1b) and Section-7(4) of the Act.
c. The provision for procedure and forms necessary for issuing notices to the third party in connection with disposal of an application for third party information, as required under section-11 of the Act.
d. The provisions for serving the severable information by the PIO to the Applicants as required under Section 10 of the Act.
e. Provision for inspection of public offices by the citizens as required under the “Explanation” appended to the Section 4(4) of the Act.
f. Provision for application for information to security and intelligence agencies of the state pertaining to “corruption and human rights violation” as required under section 24(4) of the Act.
9. In view of the absence of a time limit for disposal of 2nd appeal by the Information Commission, the Orissa RTI Rules should provide for the same.
10. As per section 24 of the Orissa General Clauses Act-1937, every rule made under the Act should be published widely in various media to elicit public opinion thereon. Again, the Section 4(1b-vii) of the RTI Act says that “every Public Authority should have an arrangement for consultation with or representation by the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof.”. But the arbitrary manner in which the recent notification of the Orissa RTI Rules has been made just on the verge of the final enforcement of the Act violates the above two statutory obligations. So the Govt. of Orissa and all competent authorities in the state should place their respective draft rules under the RTI Act in the public domain for opinion by the latter, following which the same could be finally notified in the gazette of Orissa.
Pradip Pradhan Lalit Kumar Mishra
Convener, Orissa Right to Food Campaign Convener, District NGO Coordination
17-A, Laxmivihar, PO- Sainik School Committee, Cuttack, 130, Bharatia Tower,
Bhubaneswar-5, Mobile: 9337330804 Badambadi, Cuttack