Workshop on Right to Information
Held at ITDA Conference Hall and Office of CCD, Parlakhemundi
On 13th and 14th of Feb. 2006,
Orgd. by CCD ( Centre for Community Development), Gajapati
DAY -1: 13th FEBRUARY, 2006
Inaugural Session-
After a note of welcome was extended to all by Sushree Sujata on behalf of CCD, the
Workshop was formally inaugurated by Sri P.C. Mallik, Chairman Gajapati Zilla Parishad by way of lighting the ceremonial lamp.
Then Sri A.Jagannath Raju, President CCD gave a thematic introduction to the objective of the Workshop. He observed that though so many welfare schemes are being administered for the common people, they are not being able to receive their benefits due to lack of proper information about them. Moreover, the entire administration along with all its activities are running at the expense of the people’ money, so the people have an undeniable right to know how the administration is functioning and what it is doing for them. The recently enacted Right to Information Act 2005 has fully empowered the people to exercise their right to information in relation to every level of governance, and the present Workshop is meant to acquaint the participants of the Workshop about how to exercise this new and unique right sanctioned by the law.
Sri Raju further informed the house that since the RTI Act covers both public and private bodies within its purview, their NGO CCD is also duty bound to disclose all essential information about its multifarious activities to the public as a whole. In pursuit of this mandate of the new law, his NGO has therefore decided to open a website through which such information would be disseminated to the public domain.
Sri Binod of CCD gave a preliminary idea on right to information. He said, after the promulgation of the RTI Act 05, no Government officer can ever question a citizen, ‘Why do you ask for this information?’. The definition of ‘information’ as given in the Act is not limited to what is written on a piece of paper, but includes material objects like a sample or model and electronic media like a CD or a floppy or a video cassette etc. One can ask for inspecting a public work under the RTI Act and thereby check corruption and pilferage which take place due to lack of information and vigilance by the people. Thanks to operation of this law, the people in several States like Rajasthan and Delhi have already received immense benefits for themselves and the quality of the public works has improved remarkably. So the people in Gajapati district, if made aware and conversant about the provisions of this new law can bring about similar improvement for themselves and as well for the development in their respective areas as well. The present Workshop has been organized with the specific aim of training the PRI leaders and NGO workers, who have come here to attend the Workshop, on the details of mechanism for accessing information from the public offices.
Then a small session for self-introduction by the participants took place, in which every one told his/her name, the kind of work he/she was doing and the area and organization he/she belonged to.
Sri Ramanath Sahu, a senior lawyer and former President of Gajapati Bar Association, who was a guest speaker on the occasion, delivered a talk in which he tried to give his understanding of the various provisions of the RTI Act 05. At first he observed that under this new law the people should be entitled to receive official information free of cost, because after all the information stored in a public place is a public property as such, and it should be freely available to them. As per the Orissa RTI Rules made under the Act, now any person can visit during the working hours any office, say for instance, the office of Tahsildar and ask for inspecting any record, be it ROR, a village map, categories of land available in an area or even lease deeds which are maintained in the Tahsil. Even if the Tahsildar won’t be there present at the moment, whosoever would be there, were he Addl. Tahsildar, Supervisor or Revenue Inspector, was duty bound to provide the information asked for. Further the new Act can be used by the people for getting the recently launched scheme of Land Pass Book properly implemented in the district of Gajapati. Under the new Act the people can also ask for information from Police and Fire Stations to as to what they were doing or not doing as per the duties assigned to them. The beauty of the RTI Act is that compared to the complex and round-about expressions found in other laws, it is easy to follow and put into practice on the part of common man or woman.
Sri Purna Chandra Mallik, Chairman Zilla Parishad, Gajapati: Sri Mallik heartily welcomed the implementation of RTI Act in the country and Orissa and felt that this new law would drive the officers to reach to the people in stead of people continuing to run after the officers for this or that reason, as has been the case so far since the British times. If we look around, we find malfeasance writ large everywhere. There is hospital but no doctor present, school but no teacher attending and so on so forth. As a Chairman of Zilla Parishad he knew thoroughly the serious loopholes that afflicted the functioning of Government offices and programmes, which he didn’t like to disclose for the sake of sanctity on the occasion of this Workshop. And the people at large did also know about such malfunctioning of the administration from their own experience. The moot point was, how to check all this. Sri Mallik hoped that the RTI Act if properly understood and applied by the people would go a long way in bringing transparency and dutifulness to the officialdom, which was the chief objective behind its enactment.
Sri Gajapati Rao, a Member of Gajapati Zilla Parishad, who was a guest speaker on the occasion, emphasized in his brief talk the need for inculcation of proper education among the youths of today. The real aim of the education was to enable one to effectively participate in the process of social change that was unfolding before all of us, but not just to get a job or earn some income. About the RTI Act, Sri Rao advised the persons present to know it in detail so as to put it into real practice in their day-to-day life afterwards.
POST-LUNCH SESSION: Discussion on NREGA in relation to RTI Act
Sri Binod of CCD presented salient features of another recently launched Act i.e. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005, that was implemented all over the country including Orissa w.e.f. 2nd February last. the NREGA is a progressive law. About the background of this new enactment he said that though there were surplus foodgrains in the Government godowns, the stark reality was that the people were starving, the reason being that the people din’t have purchasing capacity to buy the foodgrains. Maharastra was the first State in the country to have experimented with such kind of law before 20 years. The NREGA has been largely modeled after the Maharastra law. As per the NREGA, Panchayat is empowered to carry out the schemes made under the Act. If more than 5 young children came to the worksite accompanying their mothers, then a crčche shall be opened at the worksite, and a woman labourer entrusted to the care of these chidren. Another provision of the Act is that if the workers come from places outside 5 km radius of the worksite, the project authorities are supposed to bear the transport expenses of the concerned labourers. Under the Act, any rural household irrespective of their APL or BPL status shall be entitled to a minimum 100 days of work in a year, otherwise they shall be given unemployment allowance.
After Sri Binod made his deliberation, some Panchayat leaders shared their views and field experience on implementation of the NREGA. Sri M.Sudhakar Rao, Chairman, Gosani Block, Gajapati observed that a total of 200 districts of the country have been covered under it in the first phase. If properly implemented, the NREGA can check migration. The Registration of the job-seeking families can be done on any day. Palli Sabha is to decide the list of such families. As he knew, Rs.3.5 lakh has been allotted to each GP of Gosani Block under NREGA. Other participants who spoke on the subject included Smt. Resma Gamanago, Vice-Chairperson of Gumma Block, Sri Brundaban Dalai a Ward Member, Sri Poulu Prahan a Sarpanch, Sri Premful Rayapatra, Sri Niranjan Behera of Association for Disabled and Sri Adia Sabar a Ward Member.
Comments by Chitta Behera, the resource person:
Sri Behera opined that the recently announced Orissa Scheme under NREG Act should be studied in detail in order to know how far the Scheme reflected the intentions and priorities of the Act. Specifically speaking, he knew that while the Act provided for the minimum wage of Rs.60/- to be paid to a labourer, the Orissa Scheme kept it at Rs.52.50, the prevalent minimum wage for the State. Secondly, the administrative arrangements under the Orissa Scheme have been made in such a way as to deprive the Panchayats of their control over operation of the Scheme which the principal Act had mandated. Sri Behera suggested that the Workshop should adopt a Resolution calling for appropriate revision of the Orissa Scheme to bring it in consonance with the letter and spirit of the NREGA.
Training on select provisions of RTI Act 05:
(Sections covered 4, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20)
The objective of the training was to enable the participants to grasp those very provisions of RTI Act and Orissa Rules made thereunder, so that they would feel confident of approaching various public offices at Parlakhemundi to seek information under Section 4 and if denied the information so asked for, to lodge complaint under Section 18 of the Act straightaway before the concerned Information Commission.
Section 1(3): Out of a total of 31 Sections of the Act, the provisions falling fully or partially under 9 Sections specified under Section 1(3) came into force at once i.e. on the date of commencement of the Act itself which is 15th of June 05, the day when the RTI Bill became the Act proper after receiving the assent of the President. The remaining provisions were to come into force on the 120th day of the enactment i.e on 12th of October’ 05.
Section 2(h)- Definition of Public Authority: The Act provides that any office falling under legislative, executive or judicial wing of the State is bound by this law besides all local self-government bodies and public sector undertakings. The Act also covers within its ambit all non-government organizations, formed or functioning under any Central or State law or funded directly or indirectly by the Government. Thus all political parties, Societies, Companies, Trusts, Cooperatives and SHGs are deemed to be public authorities for the purpose of the RTI law. Of course, there lies a marked procedural difference in respect of how to access information, between the Government organizations and non-Government Organisations. The Definition of ‘information’ given under Section 2(h) contains inter alia such words, ‘information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force’, and it means that a person desiring to access information about a private body in stead of approaching that private body straightaway, ought to approach the public authority that controls and monitors the concerned private body, for getting the required information.
Section 4 : The suo moto disclosures by the public authorities- Every citizen has a right to inspect the office of a public authority (Explanation to Section 4), to ask for any information under 17 categories as detailed under Section 4(1b), to demand the said information free of cost, if the State Government as in case of Orissa doesn’t prescribe any separate fee to be charged against the supply of information falling under the category of proactive disclosures, to expect each public authority to consult the members of public while taking any administrative or quasi-judicial decision that affects public interest [ Section 4 (1 c and d)], to press the public authorities to disseminate the information through local language, local media and minimum cost. Further, each public authority should also publicise their decision as to which of their meetings are open to public participation, and which are not.
Section 5 : No office can escape the obligation to provide information to a citizen on the easy alibi that no PIO has so far been appointed for the purpose, since the Section 5 enjoins on each office to appoint necessary number of PIOs and APIOs within 100 days of the notification of the Act i.e. within 22nd Sept. 05. Even if a PIO or an APIO be absent from an office, any other officer of the same office as authorized by them, can perform the functions of the PIO or APIO in their absence. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that no citizen returns disappointed from an office without getting the desired information.
Section 5 read with Section 18(1): The job of the PIO/APIO is not only to receive the request for information from the members of the public but also to write and forward the Complaint of an aggrieved citizen to the 1st Appellate authority or directly to the Information Commission, failing which such an act of refusal by the concerned officer can constitute an additional ground of complaint before the Information Commission against him.
Section 6 : If the applicant is unable to write, the PIO shall write for him or her [Section 6(1b)]. An applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him [6(2)]. If somebody approaches a public authority for an information which is available with another public authority, then the former in stead of refusing to give the requested information, shall forward the said request to the concerned public authority with intimation to the requesting citizen [6(3)].
Section 7(5) of the Act read with Orissa Rules: The Act provides for exemption of 3 kinds of fees for the applicants under Section 6(1) belonging to BPL families, such as Application Fee [Section 6(1)], Cost of Providing the Information [Section 7(1)] and Fee for Electronic Medium [Section 7(5)]. But the Orissa Rule 4 exempts only the application fee for BPL familes.
Section 8: The Act provides for 10 kinds of information the disclosure of which may be provisionally withheld by the concerned public authorities, but the proviso to the Section 8 says clearly, “the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to a person”.
Section 18: If any citizen gets deprived of accessing the desired information in a proper form and manner on account of the omissions and commissions of the concerned public authority, then he or she can lodge a direct complaint before the Information Commission on a plain sheet of paper without having to pay any appeal fee. The complaint under Section 18 is primarily aimed at rectifying the deficiencies of a public authority and making available thereby to the citizen the required information, while the second appeal before the Commission aims at penalizing the PIO who was responsible for depriving the concerned citizen of access to the requested information. Broadly speaking, one should resort to the Complaint under Section 18 if he or she fails to access information permissible under Section 4, while he or she should use Section 19 to lodge the second appeal before the Commission if he or she gets deprived of access to the information applied for under Section 6 (1) of the Act.
Section 19 (8b): An aggrieved citizen while framing a Complaint under Section 18 or a second appeal under Section 19 may mention the kinds of losses financial or otherwise suffered by him/her on account of being wrongfully deprived by the public authority or PIO concerned of access to the requested information, and the Information Commission may order the concerned public authority to compensate for the losses so suffered.
Section 19 (5) read with Section 20(1): The Act categorically says that in any appeal proceedings, the burden of proof shall always lie on the PIO who denied the requested information to the concerned citizen.
Section 20: The sub-section (1) provides for a fine of Rs.250/- against every day’s delay in supplying the requested information, to be paid by the concerned PIO, and the total amount of penalty may extend upto Rs.25,000/- . The sub-section (2) provides for disciplinary action such as transfer, demotion, suspension and dismissal etc. against the PIO who persistently refuses to provide the requested information as per the law.
Section 27(2) read with Orissa Rules: The Act provides for the Central or a State Government inter alia to prescribe 4 kinds of fees, such as the fees under Section 4(4) which means the fee for suo moto information, under Section 6(1) which means Application fee, under Section 7(1) which means the cost of providing information, and under Section 7(5) which means the fee for the cost of electronic medium like CD/floppy, video cassette and email-internet etc. As against the scope for 4 kinds of fees to be prescribed, the Orissa RTI Rules have prescribed only 3 kinds of fees, and omitted the fee under Section 4(4) from the definition of the fee itself [Orissa RTI Rule 2(1c)]. Thus under the Orissa RTI Rules, an office under the State Government can’t charge any fee against the supply of suo moto information under Section 4(4) of the Act.
At the end of the training, the participants were asked as to whether they felt confident of going round to various public offices the next day morning to demand information under Section 4(1b) of the Act free of cost, instantly and without making an application, and reversely to lodge a complaint straight before the Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act if they were denied the information sought for. All of them expressed the hope that they could do it for the sake of their own, direct experience of the actual working of RTI law at the level of different offices. Then the business of the 1st day came to a close with the participants retiring to their respective abodes.
DAY-2 : 14th OF FEBRUARY 2006
Formation of Groups to visit Govt Offices:
At around 9.30 PM the participants reassembled for the 2nd day, in the Training Hall of CCD. They were first of all divided into 4 Groups, each with a Spokesperson and a few members. Each group was assigned with some offices to be visited. The group-wise arrangements were made as follows:
Group 1: Premfulla Raipatro (of CCD, the Spokesperson), Nagraj Senapati, Manoj ku. Panda, Jagannath Sabara- CCD Kuni Janni, Gurunath Bhuyan- SWWS, Laxhmi Narayan Behera-JKP (Jana Kalyan Pratisthan)
Group 2: Pramila Bhuyan(of SWWS, the Spokesperson), Asaya Sabaro,Rabindra Bhuyan, Josiyo Roita, Rajendra Sabaro, Hrushikesh Panda (CCD)
Group 3: Sitamani Bhuyan (of SWWS, the spokesperson), Prasanta Biswal, Kliopas Naik, Jijeble Gamango (CCD), Niranjan Behera
Group 4: Muna Kumar Bhuyan,(of SWWS, the spokesperson), Rushma Gamango(Gumma Block Vice-chairman), Sapan Ku Panigrahi, Brundaban Dalai , Basudev Mandingi( CCD).
At around 2 PM the groups returned to the venue of the training, and after taking their midday lunch the presentation by each group of their respective experiences was made. Other participants made their observations on the experience so presented. It was commonly found that the concerned officer in every office asked the group to submit an application in the specified Form along with an application fee of Rs.20/- and to wait until the completion of 30 days to receive the reply to the application so submitted. But after hearing the argument from the group about the difference between the suo moto information under Section 4 and information on application under Section 6, some offices agreed and gave the information, while others stuck on to their position.
Offices from where nformation was received under Section 4(1b) of the Act:
- Office of the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Parlakhemundi Division:
Amount of seeds sanctioned to Laxmipur, Santoshpur and S.Rantajur GPs during 2003-05
- Office of the District Agriculture Office, Gajapati:
Monthly salary and duties of the staff for the current year
- Office of the Horticulturist, Parlakhemundi
Targets and achievements of horticultural plantations in the selected Blocks of Gajapati.
Offices against whom Complaints were Lodged before the State Information Commission under Section 18(1) of the Act
- The Office of Sub-Collector, Parlakhemundi
- The Office of District Collector, Gajapati
SUMMING-UP:
Sri Chitta Behera, the resource person commented that the day’s experience of the groups proved that if they could argue out their case properly before the concerned officer of a public authority, then they would be able to procure whatever information they wanted under Section 4 (1b), free of cost, instantly and without making any application, as against the Government propaganda that in order to get a piece of any information, one needs to apply in a Form as required under Section 6(1) paying the application fee and sitting back at home in wait to receive the reply. Secondly, the day’s experience also disproved another myth propagated by the Government that in order to complain before the Information Commission one had to go for the 1st appeal before the departmental appellate authority to start with, and that too in a specified form and paying the appeal fees for both 1st and 2nd appeals. The participants must have learnt from their experience that as against this round-about provision under Section 19, one could directly complain before the Commission as permissible under Section 18 of the Act. If they can continue their practice of using Sections 4 and 18 as learnt from the Workshop in days to come involving the people at grassroots level, then the public authorities shall also be in due course accustomed to the need for providing free and instant information to the public as required under Section 4 of the Act.
Sri A. Jagannath Rao, the Chief Functionary of CCD gave the concluding address, in course of which he appealed to the participants to put into practice the lessons learnt and mobilize the PRI representatives at Block and GP level to undertake similar group visits at their respective levels to various public offices for getting the RTI Act operationalised for the poor and downtrodden masses of people for whom it is actually meant. Then the two-day Workshop came to a formal close at around 5.30 PM.