DISTRICT LEVEL WORKSHOP
Lobby and Advocacy on Right to Information
Sponsored by : SORC, CENDERET (XIM), Jeypore
Orgd. By : CURE, Parlakhemundi
Venue: ITDA Conference Hall, Parlakhemundi, Gajapati
Dates: 23rd and 24th February 2006
DAY 1: 23RD FEBRUARY 2006
Inaugural Session
The Workshop was inaugurated by Sri Purnaa Chandra Mallik, Chairman, Zilla Parishad, Gajapati by way of lighting the ceremonial candles. Besides Sri Mallik, in the dais were Sri Chitta Behera, Resource Person on RTI, Sri Purna Ch. Mohapatra, Retd. Tahsildar, Smt. Martha Rohit Chairperson of Nuagarh Block, Sri Kishore Kumar Kiro and Sri Anjan Kumar Panda District Coordinators of CENDERET for Rayagada and Malkangiri respectively.
Then Sri G.Damodar, President CURE gave an introductory talk on the objective of the Workshop. He observed that CURE has already organized a series of lobby and advocacy programmes on the rights and entitlements of marginalized sections of population in Gumma and Nuagarh Blocks of Gajapati district involving the representatives of PRIs and SHGs. Since the Right to Information is a powerful tool for these people to assert and achieve their rights and aspirations, it was decided by CURE to hold a District level Workshop at Parlakhemundi to sensitize primarily the PRI leaders on RTI, following which they can make the people at large aware in their respective Blocks and GPs as to how to apply it in their day-to-day life to get the desired information and simultaneously to ensure transparency in governance at grass root level. The present Workshop is an outcome of that decision, and CURE is thankful to CENDERET for extending support and collaboration for holding the same.
Sri P.C.Mallik, the inaugurator in his talk first of all recollected siumilar event on the topic of RTI which was held about 10 days back in the very ITDA Conference Hall where the present Workshop was being held. Sri Mallik then observed that some very progressive laws like RTI Act which should have been adopted soon after independence, took however long 58 years to get enacted. And despite its enactment, the people are yet to reap the benefits of this new law, and the reluctance of the bureaucrats to give up secrecy and share information with people seems to be the main hindrance against its proper implementation. However it is a very positive sign that the NGOs in large number are coming forward not only to activate an otherwise slothful bureaucracy for its proper implementation, but also to carry the message of RTI down to the people at grass root level. Hopefully the NGOs shall succeed in their mission and a fruitful partnership between GOs and NGOs shall emerge in days to come for a collaborative effort to ensure a proper implementation of the new law.
Sri Purna Chandra Mohapatra, the Retd. Tahsildar who had served the Government in various capacities in course of his long service career opined that though the RTI Act was a Central law, each State Government has the bounden obligation to implement it properly in their respective spheres. But as far as his impression went, no visible sign was found in Gajapati district for operationalising the Act in the district so far. To his knowledge neither any PIO has been appointed nor any administrative arrangement made for supplying information to the public as per the Act. Unless and until the common people are able to access the official information by using this Act, we can’t take for granted anybody’s claim that RTI in operation in our district. The RTI Act is powerful weapon the hands of the people, who can get all sorts of information they require from Government offices by applying under Section 6 of the Act, except of course those which have been exempted from disclosure under this very law. For instance, they can get a copy of the BPL survey report, of the teachers’ attendance register maintained in the schools, of the leases sanctioned by the Tahsildar and Revenue Department, of the records relating to the nomination of village leaders by the BDO office, and the like. If an official refuses to provide information as per the Act, he may be fined with Rs.250/- per each day’s delay upto Rs.25,000/-. The Act provides for early computerization of all official records to ensure their easy access to the people. But it is very much doubtful as to how much real progress has been achieved in this respect. The RTI has a very vital role in checking corruption in Government offices. As everybody knows, vast amounts of money are now flowing to the Block and other Government offices. But due to lack of transparency and people’s vigilance, corruption is also taking place on a vast scale. Even the Sarpanch of a GP knows not how much money has come and on which heads. Now the exercise of RTI by the people can effectively check such floodgates of corruption at all levels. Even NGOs are held accountable under this law to show transparency in their financial and other transactions. But like so many other progressive laws like Dowry Prohibition Act which have fallen into disuse, this new law on RTI may meet a similar fate if the people fail to make proper use of it. So the present Workshop will serve its true purpose if the participants, even only five out of them get really inspired and trained to apply the new RTI law in their respective spheres of work in days to come.
Smt. Martha Rohit, Chairperson Nuagarh Block in her brief talk informed the house that the Block officials from their side have not disseminated anything so far about the new RTI law to the PRI representatives. Whatever information we have of it today is only received from the source of NGOs working on the subject. It is therefore very much urgent that we the PRI representatives should learn thoroughly about how to demand information from various Government offices and help thereby the common people do the same afterwards.
Sri Kishore Kumar Kiro, District Coordinator for Rayagada and Gajapati, CENDRET observed that all of us first of all know, why the RTI Act has been passed by our Parliament ? The simple reason is that huge sums of money, which are flowing to the Government offices for different welfare and development projects are getting misappropriated or siphoned off due to people’s lack of access to information about all this. So if we want that every rupee that comes for Panchayat be spent properly and fully for the purposes for which it was sanctioned, then we need to learn the detail mechanism provided under the Act to collect the official information we want for ourselves or our Panchayats.
Sri Anjan Kumar Panda, District Coordinator for Malkangiri and Koraput, CENDERET observed that despite the enforcement of the RTI Act since 12th of October’ 05, the mindset of both bureaucrats and people is still steeped in the culture of official secrecy, that has its roots in this country since the imposition of Official Secrets Act 1923. However, Bhuban is reportedly the first place in Orissa where a person immediately following the enforcement of RTI Act asked for information using the new law. It is also a fact that the PRI representatives of Koraput asked the District Collector Koraput Smt. Suva Sharma for information on the item-wise expenditures incurred for organizing Parab festival that took place in mid-November 2005, and the Collector complied with the same. Due to our ignorance about the laws of the land, we are unnecessarily harassed by the people in the Government. For instance, as per the law, no body subordinate in rank to an ASI of Police can ask a citizen to show his/her Driving License. But taking advantage of our ignorance, any subordinate police man, even a Constable most of the time threatens and harasses us on the grounds of the DL, but we silently and obediently surrender before them. The present Workshop aims at sensitizing the PRI representatives on the rights of citizens to access information from every office as per the new law, and then they in turn shall mobilize the people at large in their respective areas to inform them about this new right. In the district of Malkangiri, the people displaced by a Minor Irrigation Project are yet to get the land for their rehabilitation. Despite the repeated assurance by the concerned Revenue Officers, no concrete action has been taken so far by the administration to rehabilitate the displaced people. Now that the RTI Act has come into force, the people can ask for information from the concerned Government agencies about the progress of the R and R programme for these displaced people. The new law, unlike its predecessor, now repealed Freedom of Information Act 2002 is stringent against the errant officials and on the whole a user-friendly instrument which the common people can make use of to vindicate their multifarious rights and entitlements.
Views by the Participants
Then the participants were requested to place whatever experience and impressions they had of the working of the new RTI law within their knowledge. To start with Sri G.Damodar informed the house that last month the Government had organized a Workshop on RTI at Parlakhemundi which was addressed among others by the State Information Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan. In that workshop, when a question was raised about the adverse nature of the Orissa RTI Rules, Prof. Radha Mohan simply said, “Let the people start applying under the new law, and we shall see”. Sri Minaketan Mandal of Nuagada observed that the common people were in complete dark about where to go to seek information and how much fee he had to pay under the new law. Sri Jagdish Ch. Mohapatra, who seemed to have some understanding of the RTI Act, said that this Act was especially useful for the PRI representatives, whose main mission was to see that all developmental works carried out in their areas were transparent and corruption-free. The provisions concerning third party information in the RTI Act may be abused by the dishonest officials to deny otherwise legitimate information to the public. The provision for penalty and disciplinary action against the errant officials under Section 20 of the Act is apparently a sound one, but it remained to be seen how far could it be translated into action in view of the hierarchy of appellate authorities prescribed under the Act. Sri Krushna Ch. Gamango said that he himself got puzzled when he pondered over the real questions, such as whom to approach for getting information and how many days it would take for an ordinary citizen to get the information sought.
Then the Resource Person Sri Chitta Behera made a few preliminary observations about the objectives of the training to be imparted in course of the two-day Workshop on lobby and advocacy for RTI Act 2005. He said that it was very important to understand the difference between the RTI Act 2005 and the Orissa RTI Rules 2005. The Act was made by the Parliament for the whole of country while the Rules there-under by the Government of Orissa to implement the Act in the State. Whereas most of the States/UTs made rules which were citizen-friendly, Orissa is the only State where we find the RTI Rules to be utterly citizen-unfriendly and out of consonance with the letter and spirit of the mother Act. Not only the exorbitant fee regime, but also the complex and confusing application and appeal procedures along with several punitive provisions against the applicant and appellant citizen as prescribed under the Orissa Rules have left the common citizen helpless to use the Act to access the official information they want from various public authorities. The trainees are requested to go through the Oriya write-up, ‘Why withdrawal of Orissa RTI Rules is necessary for implementing the historic RTI Act in the State?’ given in the folder to acquire an overall, comparative idea about the omissions and commissions of the Orissa RTI Rules vis-à-vis the RTI Act. If convinced about the untenable nature of the Orissa Rules, they should join their hands with other civil society groups campaigning across the State for abolition of the current, ultra vires Orissa RTI Rules and their replacement by an appropriate set of State Rules in keeping with the original mandates of the Act.
However, the main objective of the present Workshop is not to dwell only on the defects and demerits of the Orissa RTI Rules, but to explore at the current juncture the possibility of using the RTI Act on the part of the common people for accessing the official information in a manner that involves least expenditure of time and money. Since the RTI Act has been framed keeping the marginalized sections of people such as the poor, illiterate, and disabled in view, we have to meticulously learn whether there exists any space for such people in Orissa to use the Act to further their interests, no matter how adverse and objectionable the Orissa Rules might be. And just like the proverb ‘the taste of prodding lies in eating’, every trainee in course of this Workshop should gain a practical experience of approaching a district level public office at Parlakhemundi for getting some or other information they want under this Act and thereby return home with a concrete, down-to-earth knowledge on the Act, Rules and most importantly their own capacity to use them thereafter in their respective spheres.
Sri Behera then recounted his experience at Keonjhar, Pallahada and Parlakhemundi earlier in the recent period, where the groups of trainees in course of similar workshops visited different public offices under the Central and State Government, and some brought the information under the Section 4 of the Act on the same day without having to submit any application or application fee. Where they were not able to collect the desired information, they lodged Complaint under Section 18 of the Act before the Central or State Information Commission, as the particular case required. Since the past experience tells that it is very much possible to get the information we want under Section 4 of the Act instantly and without any fee or hassle, even from an office of the State Government, we should focus on how to make most of it in place of the Section 6 of the Act that requires application to be made, fee to be paid and days to be waited for. And further we should focus our learning on Section 18 of the Act whereby any citizen can directly and straightaway send across his/her Complaint to the Central or State Information Commission as the case may be, in place of the round-about provision under Section 19, whereby a citizen has to appeal to the 1st appellate authority, before making the second and final appeal before the Information Commission.
Then the Session broke off for lunch. The participants got together at 3.30 PM for the next session of the day. In the post-lunch session, some relevant provisions of the RTI Act 2005 and Orissa RTI Rules 2005 were read and explained in detail.
Reading of the select provisions of RTI Act 2005
Section 22: Overriding nature of the RTI Act over other laws and instruments of the State. In practical terms, it means that no officer can quote any other law or code than this very Act to deny information to the citizens.
Section 2 (j): Definition of Right to Information. Read with the provision under Section 2(f) that defines ‘information’ and that under Section 2(i) that defines ‘record’, the term ‘information’ not only means the information written or printed on the sheets of paper, but includes within its ambit the right to inspection of a worksite and files, the right to collect a certified sample or model of a structure, the right to access the information stored in a computer, video cassette, microfilm or internet and the like.
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 27(2): The subjects on which rules may be made: 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.
Section 6 : Application Procedure: A person may apply for any information before the PIO ( Public Information Officer) of a public authority in writing giving his name and contact details only, along with the required application fee in case of a non-BPL person. But if the applicant is unable to write, the PIO shall write for him or her [Section 6(2)].
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 PIO or 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 (3) : 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.
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 an 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 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 one 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 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 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 24 : No public authority except the 18 nos. of security and intelligence agencies of the Central Government as listed under the Second Schedule of the Act and except 5 nos. of organisations of Orisss as notified by the State Government on 29th of Oct. 05, can legally bar the admission of a citizen to its premises or office or continue with the age-old practice of declaring ‘Admission Prohibited’ at the entrance of a room or chamber just to whisk away the people. However the two provisos to this Section clearly lay down that ‘the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation’ can be accessed from these Central or State agencies.
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 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 7(5): 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(10)] and Fee for Electronic Medium [Section 7(5)]. But they may have to pay for the fee towards the cost of providing information under Section 4(4) of the Act.
Section 30: The Central Government has the power to remove difficulties arising in course of implementation of the Act anywhere at Central or State level, but within two years of the commencement of the Act.
Section 1(3): Out of a total of 31 Sections of the Act, the provisions falling fully or partially under the 9 Sections 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.
Reading of the Orissa RTI Rules 2005
The select provisions under the Orissa RTI Rules 2005 were read and discussed in the house with twin objectives:
- To find out how far the Orissa Rules were in tune with the mandates of the RTI Act’ 05; and
- To explore the possibility of getting the desired information on the part of the common people from all public authorities including even those under the control of the State Government of Orissa, irrespective of the adverse nature of the Orissa RTI Rules.
Rule 2(1c)- Definition of Fee: Though the Section 27(2) of RTI Act provided for an appropriate Government to prescribe 4 kinds of ‘fee’, the definition of ‘fee’ under the Orissa Rules recognized only 3 kinds of ‘fee’, namely fees under Sections 6(1), 7(1) and 7(5), and left out the ‘fee’ under Section 4(4). Thus no officer of the Government of Orissa can charge a fee against the supply of information under Section 4(4) of the Act. So as per the Orissa Rules, a person is entitled to receive any information falling under Section 4 of the Act free of cost.
Rule 2(2): Here the Orissa Rules makes it clear that whatever is left out from the definition under Orissa Rules shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Act.
Rule 4: Here is provided the procedure to obtain information. A person has to apply in Form A alongwith the application fee through Treasury Challan or Cash as specified in the Schedule. The BPL persons shall be exempt from the application fee. Please note that the BPL persons are not exempt from other kinds of fees than the application fee only. One can submit the application for information through electronic means (email) provided he or she submits along with that an evidence of the application fee already paid. However it is not specified as to what evidence shall be submitted along with the application through email and how. The PIO shall furnish the acknowledgement of the application so received and after being satisfied with the identity of the applicant shall intimate the applicant in Form B about the fee to be paid towards the cost of providing the information sought. Please note that if the PIO is not satisfied with the so-called identity of the person he may not issue the intimation in Form B, and the application fee already deposited shall be automatically forfeited. Also note that there is no deadline specified within which the PIO shall respond in Form B, except the mention of the ambiguous words ‘as soon as possible’. However the applicant is required to deposit the fee so quoted by the PIO, within 15 days of the receipt of the intimation in Form B. It means the PIO may send the Intimation in Form B on 29th day of the receipt of the application for information. Since the Section 7(3a) of the Act says that the ‘the period intervening between the dispatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days’, the possibility of an applicant getting the information sought ordinarily within 30 to 35 days as contemplated under the Act doesn’t arise in view of the peculiar provisions made under the Orissa Rules.
Form B ( Intimation for Payment): Though the Section 7(3) of the Act enjoins upon the PIO to intimate the detail breakup of the total fees to be paid along with the particulars of appellate authority before whom the applicant has a right to appeal against the fees so charged or the form of access so provided, the Form B has avoided mentioning either the detail break-up of the fees or particulars of the appellate authority.
Form C (Intimation regarding rejection): Though the Act under Section 7(1) says categorically that an application can be rejected only for the specific reasons falling under its Sections 8 (Exemptions from disclosure) or 9 (Copyright), the Form C provides for many more and spurious grounds such as incompleteness of the application, unsatisfactory identity of the applicant, the concerned information being available in the published material or on the website etc. To cap it all, the Col. IX of the Form gives an absolutely discretionary handle to the PIO to turn down any application saying ‘for any other reason, see overleaf’.
Rule 10 (Calculation of cost of damage): Though the Act provides for compensation to the aggrieved citizen [Section 19(8b)], the Orissa Rules does the contrary by compelling the applicant citizen to pay for the damage that may be caused to a solid structure in course of the collection of a sample thereof by the PIO in response to the request for the same by a citizen.
Rule 12 (Deposit of Expenditure): Though the Act clearly places the burden of proof on the PIO concerned in any appeal proceedings, the Orissa Rules provide for the advance deposit of money by a citizen appellant before the Information Commission that may be required for production of evidence and witness etc. in course of the hearing of his/her appeal.
Rule 13 ( Realisation of Penalties or Damages) : Contrary to both letter and spirit of the Act which are out and out citizen-friendly, the Orissa Rules provides for a draconian manner of realising ‘damage or any other sum payable under the Act, if not paid within thirty days of the receipt of the order for realization of the same or cannot be recovered’ i.e. by way of realizing ‘the arrears of land revenue’. Legally it means that if a citizen fails to pay within the notified date, his/her land or homestead shall be subject to confiscation and auction for realizing the pending sums, and alternatively he/she or his/her successor may have to suffer civil imprisonment for a period of 6 weeks if the pending amount is Rs.250/- or less and for a period of 6 months if the pending amount is above Rs.250/-.
Form A ( Application Form): Against the injunction of the Act forbidding the prescription of any compulsory form for application for information [Section 7(9)], the Orissa Rules has provided for a compulsory, complex and written 11-column form in which everybody irrespective of his/her literacy level, has to apply for seeking information under the Act, and any error in filling up the said form shall result in the rejection of the application form ( vide Col. II of Form C) together with the forfeiture of the application fee. However, the Application Form so prescribed is applicable only in cases where a person seeks to apply for information under Section 6(1) of the Act ( vide the second sub-title of the Form A). So it is absolutely clear that any body seeking information under Section 4 of the Act needn’t have to apply in Form A.
Schedule of Fees/Amount: Against the categorical injunction of the Act that all the 3 kinds of fees i.e. under Sections 6(1), 7(1) and 7(5) shall be ‘reasonable’, the Orissa Rules has mandated exorbitant rates of fees against each item, be it for application, typed/xeroxed copy, print-out from computer or inspection. Again, while the Act or Central Rule hasn’t provided for any appeal fees to be charged, the Orissa Rules has imposed tall fees for both 1st and 2nd Appeals. However, the sub-title of the Schedule that reads ‘See Rules 4 and 7’, if interpreted correctly, would mean that this schedule of fees shall be applicable only to the persons who seek to apply in Form A for information under Section 6(1) of the Act ( Rule 4) and to submit a Memorandum of Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act ( Rule 7). Thus this Schedule of Fees is not binding on the persons who seek information in various forms ( such as through paper-based document, electronic media or inspection etc.) under Section 4 of the Act. Since the Rule 2(2) says that the matters not dealt with under Orissa Rules shall be dealt with in the manner as prescribed under the Act, the persons seeking information in any form under Section 4 of the Act are entitled to get the same either free of cost or at actual cost of the medium or print, that may be prescribed [Section 4(4) of the Act]. Again, since the Orissa Rules has not prescribed any fee against the supply of information under Section 4(4), the other option i.e. free-o-cost shall necessarily prevail.
Then Sri Behera concluded that it was very much possible on the part of the participants of the present Workshop to seek information under Section 4 of the Act instantly from an office under the State Government of Orissa, without making an application, without depositing any fee for application or cost of information, just by way of a proper interpretation of the Orissa RTI Rules and RTI Act 2005, and alternatively, if denied the information so sought, to send a Complaint under Section 18 of the Act through the concerned office itself directly to the State Information Commission, which unlike the appeals under Section 19 requires no format nor any fee to be paid.
Mock Sessions for operating Sections 4 and 18
To give a practical step-by-step demonstration of how to ask for information under Section 4 and how to get a Complaint under Section 18 forwarded to the State Information Commission through the concerned officer of the Public Authority in situations where the information sought was denied on this or that ground, several rounds of mock trials were held. In the said trials the Resource Person Sri Chitta Behera acted the role of the head of a public authority while the groups of participants that of the information seeking citizens. Reversely, in a particular round, Sri Behera acted the role of information seeker while Sri Anjan Panda that of the head of the public authority. As a result of these rounds of mock practice, the participants felt confident of their ability to approach the offices of State Government the next day for seeking information and making complaint in the manner just practiced by them. All the participants were divided into 4 groups, each group consisting of 5 persons on an average and led by a spokesperson and assigned with 2 to 3 District level offices under State Government at Parlakhemundi to be approached. Then the 1st day’s programme came to an end with the participants returning to their respective places of night accommodation.
DAY- 2: 24TH OF FEBRUARY 2006
At first, the Report of the proceedings of the First Day, which was prepared by Sri Rama Chandra Pradhan of Utkal at Padmapur in Rayagada district was read out by him. Following some discussion on the Report, the same was adopted.
During the previous day the participants were already divided into 4 groups for the purpose of visiting different offices at Parlakhemundi to put into practice the lessons learnt on Sections 4 and 18. Before their departure for the said purpose, Sri Chitta Behera, the resource person gave some urgent tips to them so that they would be able to either collect the information they wanted under Section 4, or to bring a copy of the Complaint forwarded to the Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act.
A standard format for writing a Complaint under Section 18 was shown to them. The address of the State and Central Information Commissions was also given to them as follows:
Chief Orissa Information Commissioner,
State Guest House, Bhubaneswar
Chief Central Information Commissioner,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-67
Then the Explanation to Section 4 of the Act was read out and explained to them. The provision made thereunder clearly said that the members of public have a right to inspect a public office in connection with their requirement for information under Section 4, and each public authority is bound by the RTI law to facilitate such inspection by the members of public. Though the right to inspection of documents and records was given under various statutes and codes in the past, the omnibus right of a citizen to inspect the public office as a whole including its staff, files and worksites etc. is entirely a novel and a very powerful right granted under the RTI Act 2005. So no officer can as such disallow any common citizen henceforward from entering an office or from inspecting its works and records.
The next tip given to the participants related to how to talk sitting comfortably and unhesitatingly before an officer while visiting him in connection with RTI. If an officer doesn’t offer the seat from his side, the visiting citizen should request him politely but assertively to make necessary sitting and other arrangements for the persons coming in search of information under the Act. If the concerned officer doesn’t heed such suggestion, then one can very well lodge a complaint against him under Section 18 before the Information Commission on this ground.
The participants were further told that they while visiting an office in connection with RTI should always choose to interact, even argue with an officer, and avoid arguing with subordinate staff of the office, since the Act has placed the responsibility for obliging the information seekers on the officers, not on the subordinate staff of an office.
Further, the visitors while seeking information under Section 4 shouldn’t write anything even if pressed by the concerned officer, since the Act enjoins upon a public authority to comply with a request of oral nature. The visitor may voluntarily give his/her identity while approaching the officer concerned for information, but shouldn’t write any application for the purpose. Whatever writing would be necessary, the concerned officer may be requested to do the same [Section 6(1b)].
At last the participants were told that they should under no circumstances return empty handed from the office they would visit. They were either to bring the data asked for under Section 4 properly certified by the concerned office or to bring a copy of the complaint made under Section 18 of the Act.
Then the participants who had already divided themselves into 4 groups on the previous day left for their respective destination offices for the job assigned to them.
The groups of participants after visiting the offices returned to the venue of the Workshop around 1.30 PM for the midday lunch, which was kept ready for them.
Post-Lunch Session: Presentation by the Groups
At around 3 PM, all the participants re-assembled for the most important session of the Workshop. Each Group presented their respective experience and findings on the interaction they had with the concerned officials while visiting the offices to seek information under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Group-A: Krushna Chandra Gamango (Sarpanch Sambalpur) GP, Sibadas Patamandal (CURE), Abhi Sabar (Sarpanch), Martha Raita ( Chairperson Nuagarh Block), Eykane Gamango (Ward Member Gaiba GP). They were supposed to cover two offices, a) Office of the District Project Coordinator –(SSA) and b) Office of Circle Inspector of Police, Parlakhemundi.
In the office of CI, the CI was absent while the team visited. The Steno who was present then asked the team members as to what information they wanted from his office. The team replied that they wanted information on number of Police Stations and the number and categories of staff employed in each Police Station within the jurisdiction of the Circle, and they wanted such information under Section 4 of the Act. The steno told the
team to contact the office of SP, where such information could be available. But when the team said that they wanted such information from the CI’s office itself, the steno requested the team to visit his office again after some time, so that the CI who would have returned meanwhile would be able to furnish the requested information. Then the team left but returned to the office again and met the IIC (Inspector In-Charge), who happened to be present then. The IIC welcomed the group of information-seekers for their approach to his office in connection with the requested information and offered them seat. Then he prepared a hand-written information sheet on the query under his signature and handed it over to the group. The Group left the place thanking the IIC for his positive response to the request for information.
The next office covered by the Group-A was the office of DPC (SSA). The Sub-Collector who was in charge of the office was absent by that time. An office assistant who was present then at first asked the team to fill up the Application Form and pay the Application Fee so that his office would be able to process the application for the requested information. But the team showed the Section 4(4) of the Act to prove their point that the kind of information they wanted required no application to be made nor any application fee to be paid. Then the office assistant being convinced that the visiting group members were well aware about the difference between the Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act, gave some hand-written data on a sheet of paper as required, under his signature. But when the group members insisted on the said sheet of data to be properly certified by his office under the RTI Act 05, the office assistant refused to comply with the said request saying that he was not the competent authority to certify the said data. The team brought the uncertified data sheet from him and returned to the venue of the Workshop.
Group-B: Suksekhar Mandal ( Sarpanch Titisingh GP), Rama Chandra Pradhan (Utkal, Padmapur, Rayagada district), Suk Bada Rait (Ward Member Titisingh GP), Sushani Gamango (Sarpanch, Gariba GP), Durya Mishal (Ward Member Naman Garh) and Sunami Sabar (Samiti Member).
They first of all visited the District Agricultural Office, Gajapati to seek the information on quantity of seeds supplied to the people in Nuagarh and Gumma Blocks GP-wise during the year 2005-06. The District Agricultural Officer quite happily welcomed the members of the group in to his chamber and offered every body a seat. Then he readily provided the required data sheet to the group and asked them to contact him again whenever they wanted any information from his office. The Officer further gave some idea to the group on how to improve the status of agriculture in Gajapati district. But the group couldn’t spare more time there to hear since they had to visit another office.
The Group then visited the Office of Minor Irrigation, but no body was present there to talk to the Group.
Group –C: Sri Minaketan Mandal ( Prem, Nuagarh), Somenath Choudhury (GP Coordinator, CURE), Sabhapati Bindhani (Ward Member Gariba), P. Nanda ( CURE) Banava Gamango (Ward Member) and Dinesh Bhuyan (Ward Member Namana Garh GP). The experience of the group was presented to the plenary by Sri Narasingh Bhuyan, a member of the group, since Sri Minaketan Mandal was absent during the post-lunch session.
They visited the office of Chief District Medical Officer Sri Karunakar Das who was then present. The Group asked for the information on the free and priced medicines supplied by his office. The CDMO referred the matter to the ADMO, Sri B.N.Mohapatra, who said that such information would be certainly available, but he required some time to process the same. He also wanted the group to apply for the information in the Form meant for the purpose along with the deposit of the application fee. But the members of the group convinced him that they wanted such information under Section 4 of the Act, which didn’t require any application or application fee to be submitted. Then the ADMO supplied the desired information in a two-page handwritten note properly signed and sealed with the office stamp.
They couldn’t visit any other office due to lack of time.
Group-D: Bilap Mandal (Samiti Member), Naba Kumar Chhinchani (Ward Member, Badapada), Sutuk Bhuyan (Ward Member Titisingh), Daniel Gamango, Gasino Bhuyan, Naresh Nath Mohapatra (GP Coordinator Titisingh, CURE).
They visited the office of PD DRDA to collect the information on ‘Total money to DRDA office at Parlakhemundi in 2004-05 on different heads’. Then both PD and Asst. PD were absent. The Head Clerk told the group to apply in Form-A along with the deposit of the application fee for getting the said information. But the members of the group convinced him that no application or no application fee are required in respect of the information covered under Section 4(1b) of the RTI Act. Then the Head Clerk became convinced but expressed his inability to supply the said information at that moment, since the concerned officers whose approval was necessary to supply such information were all absent at that time. He however promised to give the said information to the group and requested the latter to visit the office again the next day to collect the same. From the words of the Head Clerk, the members of the group got a positive indication about the willingness of the Head Clerk to supply the information sought. Then the group left the office for their next destination.
The next office the group wanted to visit was the Excise Office. But no body was present there except a Peon. He was told by the members of the group about the purpose of their visit i.e. to collect some information under RTI Act. The Peon requested the group to come just after one hour, when the concerned officers would be available for giving the desired information. But when the group again visited the office after an hour, they found the office locked up from outside. So the group had to simply return to the venue of the Workshop.
Lessons learnt and Action Plan
Following the presentation by each group, there took place some discussion in the plenary on the omissions and commissions of the group. Every body learnt some or other useful lessons for future from the discussions so held.
After going through the practical exercise of visiting the public offices to seek information under the RTI Act, each participant felt immensely emboldened to undertake such visits in his/her area by himself/herself and encourage also the other members of the community to approach the public offices in future freely and fearlessly to seek information they required.
Sri Anjan Kumar Panda and Sri Kishore Kumar Kiro of CENDERET, the sponsoring organization led the last session which was meant to draw up an Acton Plan for days to come in near future. Based upon the consensus of the participants, the following action points were adopted unanimously by the house:
- Block level and GP level Workshops including demonstration visits to the public offices at respective levels should be organized by the concerned participants, and the leading trainees of this Workshop should serve as Resource Persons for these grass root level events.
- The Officials at Block and GP levels should be sensitized, especially by the PRI leaders who have got trained in the present Workshop, to organize Seminars and Workshops etc. out of the resources of the respective offices, and the well-trained participants of this Workshop should serve as resource persons in such events.
- The dissemination materials, especially attractive and illustrated posters should be prepared, printed and displayed in conspicuous places to propagate the message of RTI, especially its citizen-friendly provisions under Sections 4 and 18.
At the end Sri Naresh Nath Mohaptra on behalf of CURE offered a vote of thanks to the participants, representatives of CENDRET the sponsoring agency and the resource person, following which the two-day Workshop came to a close.