District level Workshop on Right to Information
Venue: COATS Hall, Koraput
Date: 8th and 9th March 2005
Organised by: EKTA, Korpaut, Supported by CENDERET (XIM), Jeypore
DAY-1, 8th MARCH 2006
INAUGURAL SESSION :
The inaugural session started at around 12 noon. First of all Sri Jagannath Mishra, Secretary EKTA Koraput gave a note of welcome to all the guests and participants of the Workshop. Then the Workshop was inaugurated by Smt. Chandrama Santa, Chairperson Koraput Zilla Parishad by way of lighting the ceremonial lamp.
Then a brief session for self-introduction of the guests and participants took place, followed by an introduction to the theme of the Workshop by Sri Anjan Kumar Panda, District Coordinator PRI Project of CENDERET (XIM). Sri Panda observed that there was a long history of struggle for legislating Right to Information in India, particularly since 1997, when the Government of India resolved to pass a law on it. The powerful movement for making the functioning of Panchayat transparent before the people which was being conducted around that time in Rajasthan by MKSS ( Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan) under the leadership of Mrs.Aruna Roy did also spur the Government to move in the direction of passing such a law. Then several State Governments passed their respective provincial laws on RTI and this fact impacted the civil society groups in other parts of the country to mount pressure on the Government to go for a national level legislation on RTI, as a result of which the Freedom of Information Act 2002 was passed in 2003. But the FOI Act had suffered from some basic loopholes, on account of which the civil society groups demanded before UPA Government at Centre to replace it with a more effective and citizen-friendly law. And all this led to the enactment of Right to Information Act 2005 which came into partial force on 15th of June and into full force on 12th of October 2005 all over the country including Orissa. By now nearly 5 months have elapsed since the Act came into full force, but do we find any substantial impact of this new law on the life of common people in Orissa?, asked Sri Panda. And the Government of Orissa have also announced the Rules supposedly with a view to facilitate the implementation of the Act. Still the people at large, especially those in South Orissa are in complete dark about this new law. So this Workshop has been organized with the twin objectives of finding out the reasons as to why a progressive and pro-people law like RTI Act still remains outside the reach of the common people and also the ways and means if any available for the people to make use of the Act in a manner suitable to them.
Sri Shaikh Ibrahim, General Secretary of Association of Librarians of Undivided Koraput district: Sri Ibrahim informed the house that their Association had organised on 8th January last a meeting on RTI Act at Vikram Dev College, Jeypore where intellectuals like lecturers, lawyers and media persons were present and discussed various aspects of the Act. Of course no body was then thoroughly conversant about the RTI Act or Orissa Rules. From the discussions that took place there two questions had emerged; firstly, the RTI Act is not an altogether a new law, since there existed so many laws that allowed the obtaining by citizens of information from different offices. Secondly, what guarantee was there that this new law won’t meet the sorry fate of so many other good and progressive laws made in the past? Sri Ibrahim wanted the present workshop to throw light on these questions in course of its deliberations.
Sri Ajay Kumar Sahu, a senior journalist:
While admitting that he didn’t study the RTI Act in depth, Sri Sahu however wanted to express his view on the Act from a journalist’s perspective. Since the Act allowed a long gap of as many as 30 days to a PIO to give the information asked by a citizen, it won’t serve the purpose of a journalist, who required information instantly and without any hassles. Sri Sahu requested that the Workshop should discuss this question too.
Sri M.G.Rasul (OAS-1), PIO, District Collectorate, Koraput
Sri Rasul observed that the RTI Act 05, which has been enforced w.e.f. 12th of October 05, is the most powerful of all laws existing as of today in India, such a beneficial law should have been promulgated much before. If the provisions of any other law conflict with that of the RTI Act, the latter shall prevail. It is very much just and legitimate that the people, on whose tax money the entire Government runs, have a natural right to know what the Government is doing or not doing for them. Earlier we officials used to provide only certified copies of records like R.O.R. and miscellaneous certificates and deny the rest of information to the public on the grounds of Official Secrets Act 1923. But now, I keep on telling the officers that they have to provide literally every sort of information available with them, except of course, the ones exempted under Section 8 of the Act. Again, except the 18 nos. of specialized security and intelligence agencies of the Centre as mentioned under the 2nd Schedule, which as per Section 24 are not directly accessible to a citizen for providing information under the Act, the rest of public authorities of the country are duty bound to disclose all their information to the public. Again these specialized agencies are also liable to disclose information if it related to issues of corruption or human rights violation. It is worth mentioning that the grounds of exemption as mentioned under Section 8, such as sovereignty, security and integrity of the country, court injunctions against disclosure, cases under investigation, privilege of the legislature, cabinet papers under decision and protection of privacy etc. are also subject to the proviso that whatever can be disclosed to an Assembly or Parliament can be disclosed to a citizen. Sri Rasul further told that as he understood, the Act provided that the information relating to the events that occurred 20 years before the date of application can’t be disclosed. The Act is also applicable to the NGOs, but the Government however has not yet made any rules for them, especially relating to the 1st appellate authority, about which he (Sri Rasul) has written a letter to the Government for clarification.
Speaking on the procedure to obtain information, Sri Rasul observed that the Orissa RTI Rules have prescribed the Form-A in which a citizen has to apply along with an application fee of Rs.20/- to the concerned PIO. A person belonging to a BPL family shall not have to pay the application fee. An applicant has to prove his/her identity as a citizen of the country by way of showing the voter’s identity card or passport. The PIO shall inform the applicant in Form-B about the charges to be paid towards the cost of providing the information. The PIO may also intimate the applicant in Form-C about the rejection of the said application mentioning therein any of the 9 grounds thereof. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the PIO, he or she may prefer an appeal to the first appellate authority against the said decision. If the applicant is further aggrieved by the order of the 1st appeal, he or she may prefer a second appeal before the State Information Commission. The Commission has the power to penalize a defaulter PIO at the rate of Rs.250/- against each day’s delay beyond the specified period of 30 days, reaching up to a total of Rs.25,000/-. And in any appeal proceedings the burden of proof shall lie on the PIO concerned, who had denied the information. Such being the norms of accountability made under the RTI Act and Orissa Rules, it is believed that those officers who are not scrupulous and transparent in the discharge of their duties shall very soon be brought to the right track.
Replying to a question by Sri Shaikh Ibrahim a participant, Sri Rasul observed that no law except RTI Act made suo moto disclosure of information binding on a public authority. From this point of view the RTI Act is a unique and revolutionary law. Sri Rasul however admitted that the suo moto information of the Koraput district administration as required to be disclosed under Section 4(1b) of the Act, though already kept ready was yet to be uplinked to the website. Sri Rasul further said that the Second Administrative Reforms Commission set up by Government of India has recently circulated a questionnaire on RTI, to be responded to by the State Governments, District Administrations, NGOs and citizens. One of the questions raised is, ‘Whether a single window system is preferable at every level?’ In his personal opinion, it may be practicable at Secretariat level, but not at all so at district level where so many offices are working with specific and distinct functions assigned to each. Another question has been raised by the said Commission, ‘How far the RTI Rules made by a State are favourable to the people.’ In his personal opinion, at least the fee structure under a State Rule should be made similar to the corresponding provision under the Central Rules.
Responding to a question put by Sri Durga Mohanty, another participant Sri Rasul
further said that though the district administration has made the necessary arrangements for providing the information under the Act, the large-scale illiteracy and ignorance among the people was a great hindrance to the proper operationalisation of the Act. Only 15 to 16 applications have been received by the district administration so far. It is the responsibility of the BDOs to sensitise the PRI representatives, who in turn shall make aware the common people in villages about how to avail the scope of the Act to fulfill their information needs. The district administration has instructed the various offices under it even to write applications for those who are unable to write on their own.
Sri Chitta Behera, Advisor to Orissa Right to Information Campaign:
Sri Behera to start with spoke on certain information gaps that he noticed in the talk made by Sri M.G.Rasul, the PIO. Firstly, as per the Section 1(3), the RTI Act along with its 9 provisions came into force on 15th of June, and the remaining provisions on 120th day i.e. on 12th of October 05. The provisions that were to come into force at once i.e. on 12th of June related basically to the need for completing the necessary infrastructural and administrative arrangements on the part of each public authority in the intervening period of 4 months (120 days), so that they would be able to furnish the information as desired w.e.f. 12th of October. From this point of view, if the district administration has not so far published the suo moto disclosures as required under Section 4(1), a task that should have been completed by 12th of October 05, then it has already defaulted for several months.
Secondly, the Government of Orissa has already notified 5 nos. of security and intelligence agencies of the State as required under Section 24(4) of the Act. (Vide I&PR notification No.PC-106/2005-29086/IPR dated 29th of October 2005). Thirdly, the Section 8(3) clearly says, except concerning a few matters, ‘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 making a request under that section’.
Commenting on the manner of presentation of the RTI Act and Orissa Rules by Sri Rasul the PIO of the District Office, Sri Behera further observed that what and how Sri Rasul has said is generally the pattern of discourse on the subject adopted by most of the Govt officers and even Information Commissioners of the State. They only talk verbosely of those provisions of the Act and Rules, which require the common people to make payment on this or that count on one hand, and to remain under the mercy of the Government officers at every step on the other. What the PIO spoke at length on the procedure for application and appeal is a derivative of Section 6 (Application) and Section 19 (Appeal) of the Act respectively. And a citizen shall have to spend money, do some paper works and wait for a long time to avail the benefits of these provisions. But the Section 4(2) of the Act itself enjoins upon each public authority ‘to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information’. Further the Section 4(1b) has mentioned 17 categories of information which each public authority should have kept ready by 12th of October 05 for suo motu disclosure to the public. And there is no as such any information that a common man or woman needs, which is not covered under some or other category mentioned under Section 4(1b). Further as the ‘Explanation to Section 4’ means, the members of public have a right to inspect a public office including such suo moto disclosures maintained by it. While inspecting such information, a citizen might ask for a copy thereof, which should be available to him/her either ‘free of cost or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be priced’. The Section 27(2) of the Act has also asked the Centre and State Governments to prescribe inter alia the fee to be paid under Section 4(4). But the Rule 2(1c) under Orissa RTI Rules 2005 while defining various fees to be paid under the Act has left out the fee under Section 4(4) from its purview. Thus as per the Section 4(4) of the Act read with Orissa Rule 2(1c), it is absolutely clear that every public authority should allow any citizen seeking to inspect or obtain suo moto information under Section 4(1b), to access it free of cost. Now the question arises, if a citizen is entitled to get the desired information free of cost using the Section 4 of the Act, why should he or she at all take the trouble of adopting a costly, time-consuming and round-about procedure of getting the same, as required under Section 6?, asked Sri Behera poignantly.
Similar is the question related to the difference between Section 18 and Section 19 of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the PIO Sri Rasul, to start with one has to approach the 1st appellate authority set up within the public authority concerned for submitting his/her grievance in a prescribed Form against the PIO who denied the information. If further aggrieved by the decision of the first appeal, then he/she might prefer a second appeal against it before the Information Commission, again in prescribed Form. Though the Act never envisaged any appeal fees to be prescribed [vide Section 27(2)], the Orissa RTI Rules has prescribed Rs.40/- and Rs.50/- respectively against the 1st and 2nd appeals. Moreover, as per the Section 19(6) the 1st appeal may take 30 to 45 days to be disposed of. Thus the procedure of appeals as laid down under Section 19 of the Act read with Orissa Rule-7 is not only costly but also time-consuming, which a poor person can ill afford for getting his/her grievance redressed. But let us look at the provisions made under Section 18 of the Act with a similar intent. Under Section 18(1) of the Act, one can directly lodge his/her complaint not only against the PIO but also against the head of the concerned public authority on account of any act of violation of the provisions of the Act by the latter. And as per Section 18 of the Act read with the Orissa Rules, there is no need as such for a format or payment of a fee or moving stage-by-stage, for reaching to the Information Commission. Thus the moot point arises, while there is under Section 18 a straight way for an aggrieved citizen to reach to the Commission, the highest appellate authority recognized under the Act, and that too without any form to be filled up, or any appeal fee to be paid or without any intermediary stage to be gone through, why should he or she turn to Section 19 that involved money, time and hassles, to achieve the selfsame purpose?
By now it should be clear to all at to why must emphasise the use of Sections 4 and 18 in place of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act. The additional reason that drives us in this direction is the fact that the Orissa RTI Rules including its tall fee regime, complex procedures and several draconian and punitive measures contemplated against the applicant and appellant citizen (vide Rules 10, 12 and 13), is completely at odds with the Central Act and Rules and absolutely useless for a common person in Orissa. The chief objective of this Workshop should therefore be to learn and master the technique of using the Sections 4 and 18 of the Act, concluded Sri Behera.
Smt. Chandrama Santa, Chairperson Koraput Zilla Parishad:
Smt. Santa while confessing that she didn’t know the details of the RTI Act, observed that such a law would hopefully serve the interest of the Adivasis and Harijans, who dominated the population of Koraput district. As she knew, quite many tribals are languishing in various jails without anybody coming forward to bail them out or to fight for their cases. On the other hand, only the rich and well-off people are winning the cases in courts. The programme of distribution of Anabadi land among the landless poor remains in a miserable state as before. The system of Panchayatiraj fares no better, though a lot of expectations have been pinned on it. But we have to carry forward the battle for self-rule of Adivasis in their respective regions. Can a law like the RTI Act be of any help to this cause?, asked Smt.Santa hoping to get a positive response from the participants.
Post-Lunch Session: Training on RTI Act and Orissa Rules:
First of all, the participants were told by Sri Chitta Behera, the resource person about the definition of ‘Right to Information’ [Section 2 (j)], that recognized a citizen’s right inter alia to inspect a worksite or any record and to take a certified sample or model of any structure. Then the definition of ‘Information’ [ Section 2(f)] was read out and it was explained that the information didn’t mean only something written on a piece of paper, but was comprehensive enough to include email, letter, opinion, advice, logbook, contract, sample and model etc. Then the Section 4 was read in entirety with thrust on sub-sections 1a, 1b, 2 and 4 along with ‘Explanation’. The participants came to understand that they had a right to inspect and access the information under Section 4(1b) free of cost, instantly and without having to make an application for the purpose.
Then the Section 18 was read out and explained to the participants. It was learnt that not only the citizen had a right to lodge a complaint under this Section directly before the Information Commission without submitting any formatised appeal or appeal fee for the purpose, but also the concerned officer of the public authority who denied information or otherwise discouraged the information seekers had the bounden obligation under Section 5(2) and Section 18(1) of the Act to write and forward the letter of the said complaint to the Information Commission. If the concerned officer refused to forward the same, he or she is supposed to have violated the Sections 5(2) and 18(1) of the Act, a fact which would constitute a fresh, additional ground of complaint against the said officer before the Commission. Moreover, the Section 6(1b) of the Act also obliges a PIO to reduce an oral request into writing, where the applicant is unable to write his/her case. One should mention in the letter of complaint the nature and amount of loss that he/she suffered due to non-response by the public authority or refusal by the PIO vis-à-vis a request for information, since the Section 19(8b) empowers the Commission ‘to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered’. This factor should be mentioned in a thorough manner for the additional reason that the Commission based upon such descriptions can arrive at a decision as to what sort of penalty, monetary fine or disciplinary action or both as provided under Section 20 needed to be meted out to the officer proved guilty. It was further explained that as per the Sections 19(5) and 20(1), in any appeal proceedings, the burden of proof would lie on the concerned PIO, against whom the complaint was lodged, and not on the complainant. So a citizen should never fear to complain whenever there appeared to be a genuine ground of complaint.
After such discussion, the participants were told that they were supposed to test their learning through a practical exercise to be held the next day, i.e. to go round in groups to different public offices at Koraput to collect information under Section 4, and if denied information, to get their complaint lodged before the Information Commission through the concerned PIO under Section 18(1) of the Act. All the participants were divided into 4 groups for the purpose, each group consisting of a spokesperson and some members. They were asked to refresh their reading of the concerned provisions of the RTI Act and Orissa Rules in the night among themselves group-wise. Then the business of the 1st day came to a close.
DAY-2, 9th MARCH 2006
Preparatory Practice by the Groups:
The participants re-assembled at around 10 AM at COATS Seminar Hall. A small session for about an hour was conducted for preparatory practice by the Groups as to how each group shall approach and convince the head of the office to be visited for getting instantly the information under Section 4 without making an application and without paying any fee towards application or cost of providing the information. In the mock trials that were held for the purpose, Sri Anjan Kumar Panda acted as the Head of the Public Authority and Group members played the role of information seekers arguing with him as to why the requested information under Section 4 shouldn’t be made available to them instantly, without any application to be made or any fee to be paid. Such rehearsal took about one hour and then the groups left for the respective offices assigned to them at around 11.30 AM.
Each Group decided to cover two offices under the control of the State Government to seek information on specific matters under Section 4(4) of the Act and if denied, to lodge Complaint under Section 18 of the Act before the Orissa State Information Commission. The composition of each group and group-wise list of offices and the matters on which the information is wanted along with results achieved by each are mentioned below:
Group-1 Ms. Sandhyarani Das ( WORD, Similiguda) and 5 others (Madhusudan Gadaba, Sanai Guntha, Phulamani Pangi, Dasarathi Harijan, Mani Khara and Prabin Khara).
Offices covered, Information wanted and Response:
Koraput Block Office: Question: How many job-seekers have been registered GP-wise in the Koraput Block under NREGA so far? Response: The Block office refused to give the information on the ground that such information could be available in the respective GPs.
The Office of the Ranger (Forest Dept.), Koraput: Question: The total area taken up for Cashew Plantation and number of beneficiaries thereof during the year 2004-05? Response: The Ranger gave a list of all plantations by the Forest Dept. undertaken during the said year.
Group-2: Mrs. Baijayanti Karan (CDRT, Koraput) and 5 others.
Offices covered, Information wanted and Response:
District Collector’s Office: Question: The salary and allowances of the officers and staff of the Koraput Collectorate? Response: The PIO Sri M.G. Rasul allowed the group to inspect the concerned register and gave a photocopy of the concerned pages.
DRDA Korapur: Question: The salary and allowances of the officers and staff of the DRDA, Koraput? Response: No officer was present to provide the said data.
Group-3: Mr. Dasu Kadraka ( Sarpanch, Kebidi GP, Jeypore Block) and 5 others (Rama
Chandra Khara, Sarpanch Sambai GP, Dangar Dei Paraja Naib Sarpanch, Kebidi GP, Kalia Paraja, Rabi Jani)
Offices covered, Information wanted and Response:
Office of Chief District Medical Officer: Question: Amount of Pancha Vyadhi Medicines supplied by CDMO Block-wise in the year 2004-2005? Response: The group got a copy of the Block-wise supply of Panch Vyadhi medicines.
Office of ITDA, Koraput: Question: School-wise Number of scholarships provided to students of Ashram (Adivasi-Harijan) Schools during 2004-05? Response: The group were told to contact the office again for getting the desired information.
Group-4: Mr.Ullas Swain (GP Coordinator, KEBIDI,) and 5 others (Kamala Majhi, Samiti Member Pokana GP, Anju Nag Samiti Member Kebidi GP, Sadha Gadeba Sarpanch Denapur GP, Trinath Pujari Sarpanch Jayantgiri GP, Kataki Khura Sarpanch Maliput GP).
Offices covered, Information wanted and Response:
Office of Tahsildar Koraput: Question: The number of landless households given Patta during the years 2000-01 to 2004-05? Response: The Tahsildar handed over a note containing the data asked for.
Office of DPEP (SSA) Koraput: Question: The school-wise amount of money spent for completion of construction of school buildings during the year 2004-05? Response: The group got a list of the data asked for.
Comments by Sri Chitta Behera:
Firstly, the groups should have got the data they received, properly certified, otherwise such data won’t be considered authentic in the eyes of the courts or various offices. Secondly, the groups which were denied information should have insisted on the complaints to be forwarded then and there by the concerned officers to the Information Commission. But Sri Behera concluded by saying that the overall success of the groups in collecting the information wanted from various offices under Section 4 proved beyond a shade of doubt that the people should prefer Section 4 that involved no cost, no delay and no paper work to Section 6 that required a person to apply in a difficult format, to pay the application fees and wait for several days. The participants of this Workshop on their return should therefore train the people in villages to make wide use of Section 4 in place of Section 6 to satisfy all their information needs under the RTI Act 05.
Practice of Complaint Writing:
The groups who were denied information on this or that ground were told by Sri Chitta Behera about how to write a Complaint under Section 18 to the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner at State Guest House, Bhubaneswar against the offices which so denied the information under Section 4 to them. Sri Behera presented a model letter of Complaint in Oriya for the purpose, which all the groups noted down for use by them to write their respective complaints.
At the end Sri Jagannath Mishra of EKTA while offering a vote of thanks to the participants, invitees, representatives of CENDERET(XIM) and resource person for their collective contribution to the making of the Workshop into a success, announced that the lessons learnt by the participants would help them to train the PRI functionaries and social workers working down below to organize group visits to various public offices in their respective spheres for making use of Sections 4 and 18 of RTI Act 05 in days to come.