To

The Governor, Orissa, Bhubaneswar

Sub:  Memorandum  for Citizen-friendly operationalisation of RTI Act-2005 in Orissa.

Hon’ble Sir,

We the undersigned, assembled in a Protest Dharana in front of Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar organized under the aegis of Right to Food Campaign, Orissa on 20.10.05 present the following matters for your kind consideration and prompt action.

  1. The RTI Act in its Section –7 (5) has categorically said that no fee shall be charged from BPL persons for application, cost of providing the information and cost of the print or electronic medium. But the Orissa Rules have allowed the exemption of application fee only {vide Rule-4(1)}, while depriving the BPL families of their lawful right to avail the exemption of other two fees.

This very provision made under Orissa RTI Rules is not only ultravires of the mother law but also reflects die-hard, anti-poor mindset of the officialdom of the Govt. of Orissa, and need to be recast throughly in line with the categorical direction for exemption the BPL families from all the 3 fees mentioned under Section 7 (5) of the RTI Act.

  1. The Sections 27 and 28 of RTI Act have categorically specified the four kinds of fees, beyond which no appropriate Government or competent authority can impose any other fees. But the Orissa Rules have made an ultravires provision in prescribing such extraneous fees as fees for 1st and 2nd appeal and inspection of documents (Vide Schedule-1) and also in prescribing the cost of damage under Rule-10 and deposit of expenditure for production of witness or documents under the Rule-12. These extraneous provisions need to be struck off.

  2. The mode of announcement of the names of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner of Orissa, as made by the 3 Member Appointment Committee formed for the purpose is in blatant violation of the provision made under Section 4 1(c) and (d) of the RTI Act, which, effective from 15th June last bind a Public Authority to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public and provide the reasons for its administrative and quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons. The Act further stipulates that such information must be "disseminated widely and in suchform or manner which is accessible to the public" {Vide Section 4(3) of the RTI Act }-a provision whichhas also been let down by the arbitrary and roughshod manner in which the Appointment Committe announced the names of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner. So it is urged that the Govt. of Orissa as well as the Appointment Committee, both being public authorities under the RTI Act [Vide its Section-2 (h)] should publicise the nominees for the said post and invite the public views thereon before making the final notification of the constitution of the Information Commission in the Official Gazette.

  3. The Section 20(2) of the Act says that disciplinary action in terms of the service rules shall be taken against the defaulter PIO if the latter persistently fails in his/her duty to provide the required information to the applicant citizens. The Orissa Rules under the Act should provide for the specific kinds of disciplinary action and modes of their execution.

  4. The Section 26 (1a) of the RTI Act obliges the appropriate Government to develop and organize educational programme to advance the understanding of the public, in particular disadvantaged communities as to how to exercise the rights contemplated under the Act. Except the misplaced advertisement in the local newspapers of the illegitimate and ultravires Orissa RTI Rules, the public at large don't know what the Government of Orissa have done to fulfill the said mandatory provision.

  5. The 11-member Core Committee of the Govt. of Orissa set up for implementing the RTI Act had in their 1st meeting held on 22.8.05 had decided inter alia that (i) Rs.10lakh would be placed with Gopabandhu Academy of Administration for the  purpose of training {Vide Para 4(c)} and (ii) and a tentative budget of 1.6 crores would be allotted for implementation of the Act in the State. The detail expenditure of such earmarked amount of money should be publicized as required under Section 4 (1b - xi) of the RTI Act.

  6. The Core Committee in the above said meeting had also decided inter alia to hold a Special Training Programme for NGOs and Civil Society Organisations at Bhubaneswar. The Govt. of Orissa should publicise the details thereof, if any such programme were at all held and the detail expenditures incurred thereon, as required under Section 4(1b-xi) of the RTI Act.

  7. 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 Orissa RTI Rules, since these are outrageously ultravires of the Mother Law i.e., the Right to Information Act-2005.

  8. (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.

  1. (A) the Form-A ( Application for Information) is too long, complex and over-demanding one, which should ve 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 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 on 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.

  1. The Form-B should mention the detail break up of  the fees that a citizen has to pay as oblibatory on the part of the PIO under the section 7(3a)

  2. The Application Fees for 1st Appeal and 2nd Appeals are ultravires of the section-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.

  3. (A) A serious technical incongruity has been noticed between Form-G ( Cash register)  where various mode 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 in 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 s, the Form-A containing the Application Form omits to mention it and limits the correspondence to post or person.

  1. The various kind 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 compatability with the Section-4(4) and section-7(5) of the RTI Act.

  2. The Orissa RTI Rules should provide for the following matters as mandated under RTI Act.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. The provision for procedure and forms necessary for issuing notices to the third party in connection with disposal of an application for third information as required under section-11 of the Act.

    4. The provisions for serving the severe-able information by the PIO to the Applicants as required under Section-10 of the Act.

    5.  Provision for inspection of public offices by the citizens as required under the “Explanation” appended to the section-4(4) of the Act.

    6. 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.

  3. 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.

  4.  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 graft 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.

Looking forward to your kind response

Yours faithfully,

 

(Pradip Pradhan)

State Convenor

Right to Food Campaign Orissa

Bhubaneswar

Dated: 20.10.2005