Visit of the RTI Activists for Inspection of Documents held by different offices at Cuttack under Section 4 of the RTI Act 2005 on

Visit of the RTI Activists for Inspection of Documents held by different offices at Cuttack under Section 4 of the RTI Act 2005 on 18^th March 2006- A Report

BACKGROUND

March’06 was the 6^th month of implementation of Right to Information Act-2005 in the country including Orissa. As mandated by the Act, the State Govt. announced the Orissa RTI Rules to operationalise the Act in the State. The said Rules was declared by the Minister of State for Information and Public Relations, Orissa on the website on 7^th of October 2005. But most of the provisions made under the said Rules being ultra vires and unrealistic, became subject to severe criticism by the activists and concerned citizens, Advocates and media persons of the State besides continuous campaign against it by the Orissa Right to Food Campaign.

The campaign apart, the Orissa Right to Food Campaign has also remained concerned with the practical aspect of implementation of the RTI Act at field level. To know the ground reality about how the Act was being operationalised by various public authorities at the cutting-edge of the State administration i.e. by the district offices, an 8-member team paid an organized but random visit to the Offices of DRDA, ADM, Zilla Saksharata Samiti and National Child Labour Project on 18^th of March 2006. The team members included Mr.Pradip Pradhan, Convener, Orissa Right to Food Campaign, Mr. Lalit Mishra, Coordinator District NGO Coordination Committee, Mrs. Dalli Das, Secretary, Project Swarajya, Ms.Waheeda Ansari, a woman activist, Mr.Bansidhar Rout, Mr.Nilambar Rath and Mr. Khirod Rout an Advocate of Orissa High Court. The team had decided to visit these district offices to ask for the information under Section 4 of the RTI Act.

Visit to DRDA, Cuttack

At first, the team visited the office of DRDA (District Rural Development Agency), Cuttack. They met the PD, DRDA and apprised him about the purpose of the visit. The PD immediately directed the concerned official to escort the team to the PIO of DRDA, Mr. Sitansu Rout. On meeting the PIO the team members asked the PIO to inspect some documents concerning the project proposal and tender papers of ANSUPA Bridge, and also the 17 categories of proactive disclosures which every office should have kept ready by 12^th of October 05, as mandated under the Section 4(1b) of the RTI Act. Replying to the query, the PIO said that all the suo motu information had been put on the website and if anybody required any specific information, he should apply for it in the Application Form required under Section-6 of the Act. But the team urged upon the PIO to give information under Section 4 which provides for the suo motu disclosure of 17 kinds of information by a public authority and the right of a citizen to inspection of the documents falling there-under, without having to submit any application or application fee. The team further asked the PIO, “How many people in our society have access to the information available on the website?” Argument and counter-argument by both sides continued centring round the procedure of providing information to the citizens under the Act. The PIO opined that they were provided with the training to supply the requested information only to those persons who would apply for it under Section 6 of the Act. During the discussion, the PIO was also apprised by the team on the intent and content of Section 4 by way of reference to the booklet that contained the Act. Then the PIO got convinced and agreed to keep all the records ready on his table as per the Template for Information Handbook circulated by the Govt. of India. He also assured to the team that he would write to his Dept. about this contentious matter.

Visit to Zilla Saksharata Samiti, Cuttack

Then the team visited the office of Zilla Saksharata Samiti for inspection of documents relating to the programmes undertaken by the Samiti in the district. During the visit, the team members found the Secretary to be absent, and only two officials present in the office. The time was around 12.45 PM. When enquired about the information to be inspected by the members, the officials expressed their helplessness to show any document unless directed by the Secretary, and they also expressed their ignorance about the suo motu disclosure of information by an office to the public. During the discussion, it was found that they were quite aware about the application form to be filled up by the people seeking information. But when asked for supplying an application form, the officials regretted the unavailability of the said form in their office. It was further found that no document was kept ready under Section 4 of the Act.

Visit to the office of National Child Labor Project, Cuttack

When the team visited the said office and wanted to see some information, the officials asked them to apply for the information in a prescribed Form. When the members told them about the provision for suo motu disclosure of information by a public authority, the officials present there expressed their ignorance about it. It was further found that no document was kept ready under Section 4 of the Act.

Visit to the Office of Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack

The team visited the office of ADM ( Additional District Magistrate) Cuttack and asked officials present there about the PIO of their office. On getting to know about absence of the PIO, the members wanted to meet the Assistant PIO. Finding no satisfactory response from the officials present, the team immediately rushed to the chamber of the ADM Mr.Hemant Das and apprised him about the purpose of the visit. Mr.Sharma also informed the team about the absence of the PIO at the moment due his leave. Then the members asked one Mr.Das about the APIO, and Mr.Das felt at first somewhat perturbed by the query from the team. He suddenly responded by saying, “This is lunch hour and I cannot tell his name. Then the members argued, ‘What is the problem in telling the name of APIO”. Then he got angry and asked the members not to disturb him, but to come in the post-lunch hour. Form this experience the team got impression that both ADM and his office were not aware about the obligation of their office as provided under the Act.

OBSERVATIONS:

From the above experience, the team arrived at the following observations:

The district officials are not properly aware about the salient features of the Act and how to operationalise them.
The Public Information Officers were not also aware about how to disseminate information under the Section 4 of the Act by way of facilitating inspection of the documents by the members of the public.
No document is kept ready in any office for the purpose of dissemination to the public as required in the given format of the Template for Information Handbook provided by Govt of India.